Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 23 50 50 50 23 50 53

3 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43

4 0 10 38 10 10 10 38 10 5

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 25 20 23 23 23 20 23 25

3 0 40 18 43 43 43 18 43 40

4 0 35 38 35 35 35 38 35 35

5 0 0 2 5 00 0 2 5 0 0

REP Desert horned

lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1 50 45 40 45 45 45 40 45 50

2 50 55 60 55 55 55 60 55 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 50 45 40 45 45 45 40 45 50

2 50 55 60 55 55 55 60 55 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 50 45 40 45 45 45 40 45 50

2 50 55 60 55 55 55 60 55 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 50 45 40 45 45 45 40 45 50

2 50 55 60 55 55 55 60 55 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

REP Longnose

leopard lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 30 20 30 30 30 20 30 35

4 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 55

5 0 10 20 10 10 10 20 10 10

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 25 20 25 25 25 20 25 30

4 50 60 55 60 60 60 55 60 60

5 0 15 25 15 15 15 25 15 10

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 30 20 30 30 30 20 30 35

4 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 55

5 0 10 20 10 10 10 20 10 10

Terrestrial 561
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 25 20 25 25 25 20 25 30

4 50 60 55 60 60 60 55 60 60

5 0 15 25 15 15 15 25 15 10

REP Mojave-collared

lizard UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 50 30 20 30 30 30 20 30 35

3 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 55

4 0 10 20 10 10 10 20 10 10

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 40 20 25 25 25 20 25 30

4 20 40 40 60 60 60 40 60 60

5 30 20 40 15 15 15 40 15 10

REP Night snake EEIS BLM/FS 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 50 45 40 45 45 45 40 45 50

2 50 55 60 55 55 55 60 55 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 50 40 35 40 40 40 35 40 45

2 50 60 65 60 60 60 65 60 55

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

R E P Painted turtle EEIS BLM/FS 1 50000000 5

2 50 40 15 35 35 45 15 45 50

3 45 55 50 40 40 50 50 50 45

4 0 5 35 25 25 5 35 5 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 50000000 0

2 50 20 10 20 20 20 13 20 20

3 45 35 20 30 30 40 20 40 45

4 0 45 40 30 30 40 40 40 35

5 0 0 30 20 20 0 28 0 0

582 Terrestrial
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 50 35 18 33 30 40 18 43 50

3 50 65 58 48 50 60 58 58 50

4 0 0 25 20 20 0 25 0 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 50 15 10 15 13 13 10 15 18

3 50 35 20 30 30 40 20 40 45

4 0 50 45 35 38 48 45 45 38

5 0 0 25 20 20 0 25 0 0

R E P Rubber bo a EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 50 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 30

3 50 50 10 50 50 50 10 50 50

4 0 50 90 50 50 40 90 40 20

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 5 0 0000000 0

3 50 50 0 0 0 10 0 10 30

4 0 50 10 50 50 50 10 50 50

5 0 0 90 50 50 40 90 40 20

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 2 5 000050 5 1 5

3 50 48 25 48 48 48 25 48 50

4 25 53 75 53 53 48 75 48 35

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 5 0000000 0

3 50 45 15 20 20 25 15 25 38

4 25 55 40 55 55 55 40 55 53

5 0 0 45 25 25 20 45 20 10

REP Sagebrush lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 50 40 35 40 40 40 35 40 45

2 50 60 65 60 60 60 65 60 55

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 50 30 20 25 25 25 20 25 30

2 50 40 35 40 40 40 40 40 40

3 0 30 45 35 35 35 40 35 30

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial S8-3
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

R E P Sharptail snake EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 0 0 5 5 10 0 20 30

4 50 50 30 45 45 45 40 40 50

5 0 50 70 50 50 45 60 40 20

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 0000000 0

4 50 50 0 10 10 10 0 10 50

5 0 50 100 90 90 90 100 90 50

REP Short-horned

lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 50 40 30 40 40 40 30 40 45

2 50 60 70 60 60 60 70 60 55

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 50 35 30 35 35 35 30 35 45

2 50 65 70 65 65 65 70 65 55

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

REP Striped whipsnake EEIS BLM/FS 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 5 0 0000000 0

2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

3 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 35 30 35 35 35 30 35 40

4 50 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 50

5 0 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 35

4 50 55 55 60 60 60 55 60 55

5 0 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 10

S84 Terrestrial
Table 4.5 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

REP Western pond

turtle EEISBLM/FS 1 40 10 0 20 20 20 0 20 20

2 30 30 30 40 40 40 30 40 40

3 30 50 50 40 40 40 50 40 40

4 0 10 10 0 0 0 20 0 0

5 0 0 1 0 00000 0

EElSCumEff 1 4 0 0000000 0

2 3 0 0000000 0

3 30 10 0 10 10 10 0 10 10

4 0 20 10 20 20 20 10 20 20

5 0 70 90 70 70 70 90 70 70

'Group: AMP - amphibian; REP -reptile.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEflf - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Spotted frog species B. The taxonomy of the central Oregon, the Blue Mountains, northeastspotted frog is uncertain. Green and others ern Washington, the northern two-thirds of

(1996) conducted a genetic study on spotted frog Idaho, northwestern Montana, and northwestern

populations throughout the species' range. Wyoming. Some populations in southwestern

Although they did not name any new species, Idaho, southeastern Oregon, and northern

evidence indicates that the spotted frog is really a Nevada are listed by the USFWS as Cl Candicomplex of species and that at least the western date species (Green and others 1996). Populapart of the range is populated by a species dis- tions of species B in this area are isolated at high

tinct from populations in the eastern part of the altitudes or in desert springs and have been subrange. We are calling the western species "spotted ject to restricted gene flow between populations

frog species A" and the eastern species "spotted and, consequently, high inbreeding within popufrog species B" for purposes of this analysis. lations. Licht (1986) reported that spotted frogs

Spotted frog species A is only known from west- were rarely found more than one meter away

ern Oregon to southwestern Washington. In from water and were normally found floating in

western Oregon, it is found at Gold Lake, aquatic vegetation. Munger and others (1995), in

Paulina Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir, and southwestern Idaho, found spotted frogs between

Klamath Forest Refuge. In southwestern Wash- 1,500 and 1,900 meters elevation in oxbows,

ington, it has been documented at Conboy Lake pools or ponds with sandy substrate, and in surand Trout Lake (Green and others 1996). The rounding areas with low amounts of sagebrush

general range of spotted frog species B within the cover. Data collected at the point of capture indiBasin includes patches within the Northern Great cated that spotted frog microhabitat tended to

Basin and Owyhee Uplands Provinces, within contain higher amounts of sandy substrate,

Terrestrial 585
submerged vegetation, and algae and lower Mountains, Lower Clark Fork, Upper Clark

amounts of grass, sagebrush, and rock substrate. Fork, Columbia Plateau, Owyhee Uplands,

Even temporary water is used for breeding. The Upper Snake, and Snake Headwaters Ecological

main population of spotted frog species B is Reporting Units. There is little overlap of the

doing well and can improve with riparian habitat northern leopard frogs' range with Federal land

improvement. The bulk of the population in the in the EEIS area. Information is lacking on hisUCRB EIS area is still intact and breeding is toric range and populations. However, populaoccurring in a variety of areas. Isolation of some tion declines have been noted throughout the

populations is severe in some EEIS areas. There western United States (Blaustein and others

are documented cases of extirpation of some local 1994, Carey 1993, Corn and Fogleman 1984,

populations in Oregon and fragmentation of Cousineau and Rogers 1991, Hammerson 1982).

populations and habitat due to past activities. Most populations have likely been eliminated in

,-,,.. .. . ill - Oregon an d Washington, except i n th e Columbia

We focused on riparian standards and grazing j^ Q ^ ^ holes area in Washi

intensity in assessing effects of alternatives on tQn Nonhem le d fr also haye been

habitat on Federal lands Historic outcomes were eliminated from most of the UCRB EIS area.

somewhat uncertain, with likelihood points dis- ^i • • • c j • »-n . j j

.. . .. ' . . " , „„,„ Inis species is round in still water and pond

tnbuted across all hve outcomes within the EEIS u u- j L u

, , , / ,x TT , ... ... habitats deep enough to have some open water,

area (table 4.5). Under current conditions within L- u • r T> i- • j- j L

. „„„ , ,., ,.,,. . which is often warm. Panelists indicated that

the EEIS area, there are no likelihood points in population levds fluctuate widely over a large

Outcomes 1 or 2. This habitat decline is projected area> and wkh .^^ ladons the effcct is

to continue under Alternatives 1 and 5 (the compounded, causing local extirpation. The curmajority of likelihood points are in Outcomes 4 rent

 ^don of populations limits resilience and

and 5). Alternatives 2 3, 4, 6, and 7 wou d ^ abm w recolonize. Even istine areas have

increase or maintain habitat conditions relative to • .. , •

w L- i TT^nn T-TO i j i- lost populations,

current. Within the UCRB EIS area, the decline

 r

in habitat from historic to current is less extreme Jennings and Hayes (1994) stated that this species

than in the EEIS area (the majority of likelihood requires tall, dense grass bordering aquatic habipoints for historic conditions is in Outcome 2 or tats. Past grazing practices have reduced habitat

higher and, under current conditions, in Out- through removal of pond bank vegetation and

come 3 or higher). Alternatives 1 and 5 are pro- have altered pond hydrology. We considered grazjected to result in continued decline from current ing intensity as an important factor in evaluating

conditions on the UCRB EIS area. Alternatives 2, the effects of the preliminary draft EIS alternatives

3, 4, 6, and 7 are projected to maintain current on federally administered habitat. The outcomes

levels. Cumulative effects results were similar to for the northern leopard frog indicate large habioutcomes for habitat on Federal lands. tat shifts from historic to current conditions, to

,- . « r, r • -i i i • more isolation and less population interaction

Spotted frog species A. Because of similar habi- across both ^ ^ The d of ims

tat associations our assessment for this species across four of mofe outcomes under historic con.

parallels that of spotted frog species B. Species A ^^ s some uncertai about the his.

'I TM 7 m ? aT

 Ou*coTMsTMthm toric distribution of this species across the Federal

the EEIS area are similar to those described for jands ( dix 4_D). Further isoladon and f

species B in the EEIS area. mentation are projected under Alternatives 1, 3,

Northern leopard frog. The range of the north- and 5 (table 4.5). Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7

ern leopard frog is scattered throughout the five would tend to maintain current habitat conditions

states in the ICBEMP assessment area. The range for this species. All alternatives have high likelimap indicates sites in the Northern Glaciated hoods (30 to 95 likelihood points) of Outcome 5

§8$ Terrestrial
(scarce habitat, little or no population interac- ponds, and slow moving streams at lower elevations, strong potential for extirpations, and little tions. Most of its habitat is likely on private land,

likelihood of recoloni/ation). Similar and more Painted turtles nest some distance away from

extreme cumulative effect trends have resulted in ponds.

severe population declines within the Basin. We „.•!« • , , , • ,

projected 67 percent or higher likelihood that Riparian buffers and wetland protection were the

species populations met Outcome 3 or higher his- primary fectors we considered in evaluating the

torically, whereas current populations hav? 63 per- effects of alternatives on habitat on federally

cent or higher likelihood of Outcome 5 within administered lands. The outcomes for the painted

EEIS and UCRB EIS areas. Populations under all

 turtle dld

 "ot ^ stron^'

 from

, "f0"": ^,TM:

preliminary draft EIS alternatives are projected at «

nt orTM<j? Alternatives 2, 3, 4 6, and 7 (tables

85 percent or higher likelihood of Outcome 5 4'

5 and 4'6)' Alternatives! and 5 were projected

a. n • to result in more isolated habitat. Larger riparian

across th e Basin. JA I • ->3/^j- 7 u buffers under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 would

Reptiles—Results for habitat on BLM- and FS- likely conserve habitat on Federal land by encomadministered lands were generally similar for five passing nesting sites, adjusting grazing regimes,

rangeland-associated reptiles (desert horned lizard, and providing dead trees in ponds for basking,

sagebrush lizard, short-horned lizard, night snake, The cumulative effects on populations also follow

and striped whipsnake), indicating that current the pattern for the Federal habitat assessment,

habitat on these lands has declined only slightly with some risk of extirpation noted for Alternafrom the historic range of conditions. The effects tives 1,2,3, and 5 in each EIS area. Panelists suson habitat also do not vary greatly by alternative pect populations are declining, partly as a result of

for these five species (table 4.6 and fig. 4.13). factors not greatly influenced by the alternatives.

These species were historically either broadly dis- Pesticide accumulations, private land modificatributed (Outcome 1), or distributed with gaps as tion, and skunk predation were noted as specific

in Outcome 2. Cumulative effects on populations factors contributing to population declines,

of these five species generally trend toward more . . .

isolated populations, though among these five ^estern P°nd mrtk- The western pond turtle ,s

species, only the outcome rating for the striped ^own to Pers

L

lst'n

 ,

the

 TM*TMth ^ region m

whipsnake in the UCRB EIS area has any points ^T^ Columbia River Gorge near The

in Outcome 5 (table 4.5). These five reptiles are

 Dailf> °reg°n

'

 wlthln the Basm' TMe WeSteTM

not fUrther addressed. pond turtle does not occur in the UCRB EIS

area. Nussbaum and others (1983) reported that

Results for other reptiles suggest a greater decline western pond turtles inhabit marshes, sloughs,

from historic habitat conditions (tables 4.5 and moderately deep ponds, and slow-moving por4.6, and figs. 4.13 and 4.15) for some rangeland- tions of creeks and rivers from sea level to about

associated species on BLM- and FS-administered 1,830 meters elevation. They require basking sites,

lands (Mojave black-collared lizard, longnose such as, partially submerged logs, vegetation mats,

leopard lizard, rubber boa, and sharptail snake). rocks, and mud banks. The majority of nesting

These declines are generally related to past conver- sites are within 200 meters of the aquatic habitat,

sion of rangeland to agricultural use or non-native but may be as much as 402 meters away. Many

plant introductions. populations show an increasing bias toward older

„...„ . r i - i i individuals, indicating that little or no recruitPainted turtle. The range of the painted turtle mem ^ taki

 ^ Disturbance of nest sites by

within the Basin includes the Columb.a River ^ and iculmral ices is bdieved to have

Gorge northern Oregon, Washington east of the eliminated reproduction in many populations

Cascades, northern Idaho, and northwestern (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Montana. 1 he painted turtle uses wetlands,

Terrestrial 58?
Riparian buffers and wetland protection were the collared lizard is displayed in the ratings for the

primary factors considered in evaluating the UCRJB EIS area ratings (table 4.5). Within this

effects of alternatives on habitat on federally area, habitat has become more fragmented from

administered land. The outcomes for the western historic to current due to habitat loss associated

pond turtle have been reduced from historic to with agriculture, non-native vegetation invasion,

current from 70 percent in Outcomes 1 and 2 to and reservoir development. Further decline of

80 percent in Outcomes 2 and 3. Alternatives 2, habitat on BLM-administered lands is projected

3, 4, 6, and 7 (table 4.5) would result in higher under Alternatives 1 and 5 due to invasion of

likelihoods in Outcome 2 than current. Alterna- non-native plants. Other alternatives were projecttives 1 and 5 would result in further isolation of ed to maintain current conditions. The cumulahabitat. Larger riparian buffers under Alternatives tive effects assessment projected a historic decline

2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 would likely conserve habitat on in populations of the Mojave black-collared lizard

Federal land by encompassing nesting sites, (table 4.5). Further decline is projected under

adjusting grazing regimes, and providing dead Alternatives 1 and 5 (tending toward more isolattrees in ponds for basking. The cumulative effects ed populations), whereas Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6,

on populations also follows the general pattern for and 7 are expected to retain populations similar to

the Federal habitat assessment, but with higher current. Declines would result from additional

risks of extirpation noted under all alternatives. conversion of native vegetation to non-native

The available evidence suggests that populations species on Federal and non-Federal land. This

are declining for reasons not strongly influenced species is also very susceptible to population

by the alternatives and Federal land management. reduction as a result of commercial collection for

The extensive habitat loss from historic conditions the pet trade.

in the former range (mainly outside the assess- T . .. . „. r . .

ment area), predation by non-native species, and Longnose leopard lizard. The range of the longcontinued loss of habitat on private land (especial- TMS(

:

 le°P^ lizard in the Basin includes rangely in the Willamette Valley) contribute to the ^ J In

 southeastern Oregon, southwestern

expected continued decline.

 Idah°' ^0

 ^ n°

nh an

u

d

 T? u t° '

and two small sites near the Columbia River in

Mojave black-collared lizard. The range of the northern Oregon. Federal lands (primarily those

Mojave black-collared lizard within the Basin administered by the BLM) constitute about 40

includes northern Nevada, southeastern Oregon percent of the species range in the Basin. The

near the Snake River and Owyhee Reservoir in longnose leopard lizard generally inhabits sandy,

southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and desert shrub areas (Nussbaum and others 1983).

near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The majority of the range They are especially common in the islands of sand

is on BLM-administered land. Distribution within that accumulate around scattered greasewood

this area is generally discontinuous (Axtell 1972). shrubs. Whitaker and Maser (1981) studied leopWhitaker and Maser (1981) reported that collared ard lizards in a shrub-steppe community of the

lizards inhabit talus in areas of low, sparse vegeta- Owyhee Upland Province. They reported that

tion and that talus is the main habitat compo- leopard lizards are widely distributed in southnent. Rock outcrops and sparse vegetation are eastern Oregon, in Wyoming big sagebrush/

important habitat for dispersal (Sanborn and bunchgrass, and in black greasewood/grass and

Loomis 1979). shadescale saltbush/bunchgrass communities.

„. . r i i • • i ^ The species tends to occupy areas with sparse

1 he evaluation or habitat in southeastern Oregon .

and southwestern Idaho of the Mojave black588 Terrestrial
Table 4.6. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of amphibians and reptiles for evaluation

of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average

likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

AMP Coeur d'Alene salamander UCRB BLM/FS4 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.1

UCRBCumEff 3.7 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.5

AMP Spotted frog species B EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.4

EElSCumEff 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.0

UCRBCumEff 2.1 3.1 3.75 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.65 3.2 3.1

AMP Northern leopard frog EEIS BLM/FS4 3.2 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.3

EElSCumEff 3.2 4.5 5.05 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.05 4.9 4.9

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.9 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.7 4.25 3.9s

UCRBCumEff 2.9 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

AMP Spotted frog species A EEIS BLM/FS4 2.5 3.6 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.4 4.0 3.3 3.15

EElSCumEff 2.5 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.6

AMP Tailed frog EEIS BLM/FS 2.8 3.2 4.15 3.2 3.4 3.2 4.05 3.2 3.0

EElSCumEff 2.8 3.2 4.65 3.7 4.05 3.85 4.55 3.85 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 3.2 4.05 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.95 3.1 3.0

UCRBCumEff 2.8 3.2 4.25 3.6 3.75 3.6 4.2s 3.6 3.5

AMP Western toad EEIS BLM/FS 1.8 2.4 3.45 2.2 2.3 2.2 3.45 2.2 2.0

EElSCumEff 1.8 3.3 4.45 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.35 3.4 3.3

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 2.6 3.55 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.55 2.6 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.1 3.4 4.25 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.35 3.6 3.5

AMP Woodhouse's toad EEIS BLM/FS4 2.5 3.9 4.55 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.45 3.5 3.4

EElSCumEff 2.5 3.9 4.75 4.65 4.65 4.55 4.7s 4.55 4.5s

UCRB BLM/FS4 3.0 3.8 4.45 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.45 3.5 3.4

UCRBCumEff 3.0 3.8 4.75 4.7s 4.75 4.65 4.75 4.65 4.65

REP Common garter snake EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 2.5 3.55 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.55 2.5 2.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 3.5 4.5s 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.55 3.5 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 2.6 3.25 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.25 2.6 2.6

UCRBCumEff 1.5 3.1 3.75 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.75 3.2 3.1

REP Desert horned lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

UCRBCumEff 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

REP Longnose leopard lizard EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8

EElSCumEff 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.8

UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8

UCRBCumEff 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.8

REP Mojave black-collared

lizard UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8

UCRBCumEff 3.8 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.2 3.9 3.8

REP Night snake EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

UCRBCumEff 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6

Terrestrial S89
Table 4.6 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

REP Painted turtle EEIS BLM/FS 2.4 2.7 3.25 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.25 2.6 2.4

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.3 3.95 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.9s 3.2 3.2

UCRB BLM/FS 2.5 2.7 3.1s 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.15 2.6 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.5 3.4 3.95 3.6 3.7 3.4 S.95 3.3 3.2

REP Rubber boa EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.3 2.9s

EElSCumEff 2.5 3.5 4.9s 4.55 4.55 4.35 4.9s 4.35 3.9

UCRB BLM/FS 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.2

UCRBCumEff 3.0 3.6 4.35 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.35 4.0 3.8

REP Sagebrush lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6

UCRBCumEff 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0

REP Sharptail snake EEIS BLM/FS4 3.5 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.9s

EElSCumEff 3.5 4.5 5.05 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.05 4.9 4.5

REP Short-horned lizard EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6

UCRBCumEff 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6

REP Striped whipsnake EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.7

UCRBCumEff 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8

REP Western pond turtle EEIS BLM/FS 1.9 2.6 3.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.2

EElSCumEff 1.9 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.6

'Group: AMP - amphibian; REP - reptile

-Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff- all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

The Federal habitat assessments for each EIS area some likelihood of Outcome 5 under each alterwere similar. Within each EIS area, the habitat has native (scarce habitat with little interaction among

become more fragmented from historic to current populations and strong potential of extirpation),

due to habitat loss associated with agriculture, Results of cumulative effects assessments were

non-native vegetation invasion, and reservoir similar to those of the Federal habitat assessment,

development (table 4.5). The primary factor con- _ ,, , _. ... ,, , ...

sidered in ratings was conversion of native vegeta- *ubber bosL The ran8

c of A

«

 r

L

ubber boa WIthm

tion to non-native species. Further decline in

 the Basm

 ^compasses most of the assessment

habitat on BLM-administered land is projected *«

 wljh

 the exception of south central Washingunder Alternatives 1 and 5. Other alternatives are

 ton and n°"h central Oregon. Panelists suggest it

expected to maintain current conditions. There is

 1S commo

,

n where found' but ls dlst

»

buted ln

scattered locations.

$8® Terrestrial
Fragmentation and connectivity of rubber boa rotting logs, oak woods, riparian woodlands, and

habitat was the primary factor considered in evalu- stable talus. The species may be undergoing continating outcomes of preliminary draft EIS alterna- ued declines resulting from increasing isolation

tives. The outcomes for habitation on Federal land associated with long-term global climate change.

for each EIS area were similar. Within each EIS T . „ . . ., , r , .

area, the habitat became more fragmented from Historically, the sharptail snake was found in a

historic to current due to habitat loss associated Patchy

 or ls°kted dlstnbu«°n

 table 4.5). Under

with agriculture, invasions of non-native vegeta- ^r

c

rent

 conditions and under all preliminary draft

«on, loss of riparian vegetation, and reservoir

 El* alternatives, the sharptai snake habitat is very

development (table 4.5). Further decline of habi-

 l*°}*ted and there is a high likelihood of Outcome

tat on BLM-administered land is projected under $ (sauce .1

 llrfe

 TMe5

acuon

 among popAlternatives 1 and 5. Other alternatives would be

 datlons

 fd strong Pot?

nt1^ °f extirpation). Someexpected to maintain or improve habitat from cur- ^ Iu8

her

 outcomes for Alternative 7 are predictrent conditions. There was no likelihood of

 ed

 f soTM ref

elves ff Wlth

r

m ranSe

 °f th

L

e sharPtal1

Outcome 5 under any alternative. Results of

 sna^' Cui"ulative effects of increased urbanization

cumulative effects assessments were similar to ^ aP^cutof would result in high likelihoods of

those of the Federal habitat assessments, but with extirpation of populations within the Basin,

likelihoods of Outcome 5 ranging from 10 to 90 u' J

percent under the alternatives (highly isolated DUOS

populations with little or no possibility of interac- Qne hundred ^j thirty-three bird species were

tions and strong potential of extirpations). assessed in four separate expert panek Informa.

Common garter snake. The range of the com-

 tion

 derived from those panels was the basis for

mon garter snake encompasses the Basin. It is

 the

 assessment discussed below.

most frequently associated with riparian vegetation

and wetter forested areas. Waterbirds and Shorebirds

Federal habitat assessments, and cumulative effect Introduction—Fifty-six waterbirds and shoreassessments parallel the general outcomes for

 birds mitiall

y

 were selected for

 evaluation from

amphibians and riparian-associated reptiles dis-

 l °2 bird sPecies

 associated with wetlands and

cussed above (table 4.5). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6,

 streams ln

 *« assessment area. One species is a

and 7 are projected to generally maintain current federally endangered species (whooping crane), six

habitat conditions, whereas Alternatives 1 and 5 sP

ecies are listed

 " Federal C2 Candidate species,

are projected to result in a decline in riparian

 and seven

 species are on sensitive species lists. The

habitat from current conditions. Alternatives 1 remaining species have had habitat decline histonand 5 have 25 (UCRB EIS) or 50 (EEIS EIS) ^'

 or habltat mi§ht declme under one or more

likelihood points in Outcome 5 (scarce habitat proposed alternatives.

with little interaction among populations and Methods—The waterbird and shorebird panel

strong potential of extirpation). altered that initial list. Eleven species were not

Sharptail snake. Within the Basin, the sharptail analyzed further or were recommended for finesnake is known from two isolated locations in the

 scale

 analysis based on peripheral, common, or

EEIS area. One site is from central Washington, insignificant distributions within the assessment

near Yakima, and the other location is on both sides area.

 The

 whooping crane was removed from the

of the Columbia River Gorge, near The Dalles,

 list because onlv a few

 individuals remain in

Oregon. Sharptail snakes occupy moist habitats, experimental populations within the Basin."

"Personal communication. March 7, 1996. G. Ivey, wildlife biologist, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Princeton, OR. On file

with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA. 99362.

Terrestrial S91
Mountain plover, a sensitive species, was consid- what poorer than they were historically, resulting

ered to have an insignificant distribution in the in more groups classified in Outcome 4 and 5,

Basin. Another sensitive species, the yellow rail, and mean outcomes about 0.5 units lower than

was designated for fine-scale analysis. historical conditions. Under most alternatives, the

„ . ... ... r i • i 1« mean outcome for all groups combined changed

Twenty species were added to the list of which 19 Uttle (< Q 5 units) from the currem conditions

were designated for evaluation by the panel and (fi 4 , ?) However> the outcomes under

one (Caspian tern) was designated for fine-scale Alternatives 4 and 6 would be better than current

analysis. Severa^ species of grebes the dabbling conditions for wood duck, mergansers, and harleand diving ducks, two species of herons, and two in ducks; near, hi or exceeding his.

species of sandpipers were added because of con- ^^ conditions (tables 49 ^ 4 10)

cerns for loss of wetland habitats past population Outcomes for the EEIS and UCRB planning

declines, and susceptibility to land use, distur- ^ ^ j , ^^ ^ outcomes under the

bance or contaminants. In the final analysis, his- cumulative effects analysis generally differed little

toncal, current, and future outcomes under the from ^ for RLM. and FS.administered ,an(k

alternatives were judged for 65 species of waterbirds and shorebirds. A complete list of waterbirds Two species were judged as Outcome 5 under one

and shorebirds and their final designation for or more alternatives (tables 4.9 and 4.10).

analysis is provided in appendix 4-C. Historical habitats and populations of upland

..... . . r . . sandpiper were broadly distributed approximately

The relatively large number of species that were ^ Outcome 2> but loss of rassland habitats and

evaluated and the similarity of habitats used by over-hunting have resulted in current and projectthese species prompted the panel to group species. ed isolated habitat hes and ladons dis.

Panelists first listed nine primary wetland types tributed ^ Outcome 5 (table 4.9) Habhat on

and other habitat features (such as snags trees for RLM_ ^ FS-administered lands for upland

nesting) used by one or more of the listed species sandpipers wouid increase siighd under

(table 4.7). For each species, a list was made of Alternatives 4 and 6, but significant (>0.5 outthose habitats considered primary for the species. comes) im ovements in outcome will remain

Species then were grouped by similar combma- problematic because of currently disjunct and

tions of habitats. Some groups were composed of d ded habitat and ladons

only one species, whereas others had several members. Inclusion of species in a particular group did Harlequin duck habitat and populations were

not preclude their use of other wetland types as judged patchy and isolated for Outcome 5 under

secondary habitat. Waterbirds and shorebirds that current conditions and for Alternatives 1 and 5.

breed or winter in the assessment area comprised Significant improvement in harlequin duck out14 groups. Migrant shorebirds formed an addi- come (to about mean Outcome 3.5) was predicttional group (table 4.8). The outcomes of each ed under Alternatives 4 and 6 as a result of watermanagement alternative were determined for the shed restoration that improved water quality,

groups as a whole with comments on individual reduced streamside disturbance and corvid predaspecies recorded as appropriate. tion (often associated with human use), and pro-

„, XT r ... i i i • i tected and restored riparian vegetation. Harlequin

Results—No groups of waterbirds and shorebirds j i i i u- j • u uj

:—•. .

 &

.

 r

. • i i i. .i j duck was the only waterbird species that showed a

were udged to have been widely distributed •? r j- •

,_

 ; &

 ,. . . ...

 7

. • i i ]• -i significant improvement from current conditions

(Outcome 1) historically, nor to be widely distrib- \ \ • / LI / n\ XT L • j-

. ( .

 J r i i • under any alternative (table 4.9). No other mdiuted currently or under any of the alternatives • j i • • • j i LI / r. j / m c /.,^11 L j vidual species or species group was projected to

(tables 4.9 and 4.10, fig. 4.16). Most groups had • . .c

v

 j i- •

. . ... . .. ., . 1-11 1 experience significant declines or improvements

historically patchy distributions as described by \ r u i • ^ '% .' ...

 J under any of the alternatives.

Outcomes 3 or 4. Current conditions are someS92 Terrestrial
Table 4.7. Wetland types and other habitat features used to group breeding and migrant waterbirds and

shorebirds for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives.

• Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation.

• Permanent, shallow wetlands (such as, springs).

• Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer.

• Alkali wetlands.

• Temporary open water (for example, meltwater pools, flooded pasture).

• Tree cavities for nesting.

• Upland grassland, primarily for nesting.

• Tree nesting (non-cavity).

• Rivers and stream riparian, wooded waters.

Discussion—Projected outcomes for the water- bility in managing grazing of upland grasslands to

birds and shorebirds as a whole changed very little reduce negative effects (for example, on upland

because alternatives had little planned manipula- breeding species such as dabbling ducks) or create

tion of wetland habitat area. Moreover, available positive effects (such as, for cranes, snipe, rails),

projections of wetland and stream riparian habitat The best alternatives were not necessarily the most

areas were poorly modeled for alternatives because restrictive (for example, Alternative 7), but ones

of the coarse resolution used to map habitat that allowed flexibility in restoration activities.

change under the alternatives and the fine grain _ .. . . L i i . . . . n r , / n i • I • i • \ r Panelists described the critical influence of natural

(small area relative to the mapping resolution) or „ . . . . . . i_ii . ~, , j L ijj- j fluctuations in wetland area over time on the

the habitats. 1 he panel assumed that wetlands did . . ..... . r ... , . ...

, . m\i re j • • j dynamics and viability or waterbird and shorebird

not change in area on BLM- or r^-administered ' , . w, , y ...

, , j i i • r i populations. Wetland expansion during wet years

lands under the alternatives except tor natural i • i • i i • r

a . , i_ L j i • i i TU results in high production to compensate tor

fluctuations due to the hydrological cycle. 1 hus, , ,

 D

 ,, ,

r

,. , , ,. ri i i_ i- drought years. Management needs to recognize

panelists assessed the quality of wetland habitats . . ° ' c \ \ \ \ ? f . ..... ^ ' „ ... the importance or such ephemeral wetlands

in assessing viability outcomes. Panel udgments . .

 r

 , \ • r • i

r u rr r i • JIT whether they are on the margin or perennial wetof the effects of alternatives were made largely on . .

 7 i i

,,. c L- • jj j -j i- lands or are separate areas that may not be wet

the basis or obectives, standards, and guidelines r

r

 , ,n • n j j ^ i j i • L ETC r n • every year, ror example, mudflats in flooded helds

presented in the tlb ror management of lentic ' !

 c.

 r

 , , . . r a

 .... . ° . or as part or larger wetlands with rluctuating

and lone riparian vegetation, snags, grazing man-

 r

. . ° .. ., ... f r, ,

 , f. ° . ° . ° . ° water levels are considered a key habitat tor breedagement 0 , and tire management in riparian areas. . ,. ,. c- \\ / •> \ o r m g ancj migrant; sandpipers. Small ( < 1 acre) wetAlternatives with the best outcomes (improved on lands are also vital habitats that are increasingly

current conditions) were judged most successful in being converted to other land uses, such as agriincreasing water quality in streams, maintaining culture, or are being degraded by inadequate manherbaceous and woody riparian vegetation through agement of livestock grazing. Such small wetlands

management of natural and human disturbance, are important habitats for grebes and other open

increasing snags in riparian areas and adjacent water species, herons and egrets, dabbling ducks,

uplands for cavity nesters, and maintaining flexi- cranes, rails, and shorebirds.

Terrestrial 593
Table 4.8. Waterbird and shorebird groups for evaluation of the ICBEMP management alternatives and

their associated wetland types, upland habitats, and microhabitats. Groups 1 through 15 are primarily

breeding species. Group 15 is only migrant species.

Group 1. Open water group. Clark's grebe, Red-necked grebe, Western grebe, White pelican, Canvasback,

Lesser scaup, Redhead, Ring-necked duck, Ruddy duck, Trumpeter swan, American bittern, Western

least bittern, Black tern, California gull, Forster's tern, Ring-billed gull. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent,

or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter

and spring, dry up in late summer.

Group 2. Common loon. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent

vegetation.

Group 3. Wood duck, Common merganser, Hooded merganser. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Tree cavities for nesting. Rivers and stream riparian, wooded waters.

Group 4. Common goldeneye, Barrow's goldeneye, Bufflehead. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Tree cavities for nesting.

Group 5. Snowy plover. Alkali wetlands.

Group 6. Harlequin duck. Rivers and stream riparian, wooded waters.

Group 7. Herons and egrets. Black-crowned night heron, Great blue heron, Great egret, Snowy egret, Whitefaced ibis. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer. Tree nesting (non-cavity).

Group 8. Dabbling ducks. Blue-winged teal, Cinnamon teal, Gadwall, Green-winged teal, Mallard, Pintail,

Shoveler, American widgeon. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish

and emergent vegetation. Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer.

Upland grassland, primarily for nesting.

Group 9. Spotted sandpiper. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer. Rivers and

stream riparian, wooded waters.

Group 10. Sandhill crane. Permanent, shallow wetlands (such as, springs). Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter

and spring, dry up in late summer. Rivers and stream riparian, wooded waters.

Group 11. Sora rail, Virginia rail, American avocet, Black-necked stilt, Wilson's phalarope. Open, deep (> 1 m)

permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Permanent, shallow wetlands (such as, springs). Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer.

Group 12. Long-billed curlew, Willet. Open, deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and

emergent vegetation. Permanent, shallow wetlands (such as, springs). Seasonal wetlands, flooded

winter and spring, dry up in late summer. Upland grassland, primarily for nesting.

Group 13. Upland sandpiper. Upland grassland, primarily for nesting.

Group 14. Common snipe. Permanent, shallow wetlands (such as, springs).

Group 15. Migrant sandpipers: Baird's sandpiper, Black-bellied plover, Dunlin, Greater yellowlegs, Least sandpiper, Lesser yellowlegs, Long-billed dowitcher, Marbled godwit, Pectoral sandpiper, Red-necked

phalarope, Sanderling, Semi-palmated plover, Semi-palmated sandpiper, Western sandpiper. Open,

deep (> 1 m) permanent, or semi-permanent, wetlands with fish and emergent vegetation. Permanent,

shallow wetlands (such as, springs). Seasonal wetlands, flooded winter and spring, dry up in late summer. Alkali wetlands. Temporary open water (for example, meltwater pools, flooded pasture).

§94 Terrestrial
Management of herbaceous and woody riparian

vegetation, and adjacent upland grassland habitats

around small and large wetlands is key to maintaining the proper functioning condition of wetlands for waterbirds. Restoration and management

of fire were considered essential to the success of

some alternatives in setting back succession to

early stages, for example, to increase habitat for

rails. Disturbance can have both good and bad

effects, depending on the species, and needs to be

managed with careful consideration of local habitat conditions and species of interest. Fire may

destroy key woody vegetation used for nesting by

herons, egrets, and ibis, and snags used for nesting

by wood ducks, mergansers, and goldeneyes.

Likewise, grazing upland grassland adjacent to

wetlands can be detrimental to nesting dabbling

ducks. However, short grass associated with grazing can be beneficial to cranes, snipe, curlews, and

some species of rails at other times of the year.

Little difference between outcomes for BLM- and

FS-administered lands and cumulative effects initially may seem counter-intuitive considering the

great extent of wetlands on other Federal and private lands. The positive effects of greater habitat

area, in many cases, were offset by negative, nonhabitat factors, such as the accumulation of pesticides and other toxic substances in wetlands,

degradation of wetlands on private lands in the

assessment area, degradation of wintering grounds

and population declines south of the United

States, and urban and industrial development,

pollution, and human activities in marine wintering environments.

Figure 4.16 Waterbirds and Shorebirds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.16. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 15 groups of waterbird species on Federal lands in the

EEIS planning area and 14 groups in the UCRB planning area for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven

preliminary draft EIS alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome

score and for ranges of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.17 Waterbirds and Shorebirds

EEIS UCRB

AAliei HCUIVC niioi native;

Figure 4.17. Mean outcome scores averaged over 15 groups of waterbird species in the EEIS planning area and 14 groups in the

UCRB planning area for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid

lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative

effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.18 Waterbirds and Shorebirds

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.18. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions under each alternative for 15 groups of

waterbird species in the EEIS planning area and 14 groups in the UCRB planning area. Departure is estimated as a change of

weighted mean outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
Table 4.9. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for habitat and species groups of waterbirds and

shorebirds for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points. High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means were calculated

from the individual likelihood scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Group 1 : Open water birds EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 72033707 1

3 91 46 37 51 51 65 51 65 53

4 2 46 48 42 42 24 44 24 41

5 0 6 1 5 44454 5

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 23044919 2

3 90 51 43 49 49 59 47 59 53

4 8 38 44 42 43 28 50 28 40

5 0 8 1 3 54424 5

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 21033606 2

3 80 61 36 58 58 67 54 67 65

4 18 28 48 37 37 22 34 22 31

5 0 10 16 2 2 5 12 5 2

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 4624 4 1 2 4 1 2 4

3 78 59 38 57 55 60 55 60 61

4 18 27 46 37 39 24 32 24 33

5 0 8 1 4 22494 2

Group 2 : Common loon EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00044444 4

3 26 39 28 36 36 40 36 40 36

4 74 61 60 60 60 56 60 56 60

5 0 0 1 2 00000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 16 10 16 16 16 16 16 16

3 36 40 34 40 41 41 40 43 40

4 58 44 46 44 43 43 44 41 44

5 0 0 1 0 00000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00044444 4

3 18 45 34 42 42 44 42 44 42

4 82 55 54 54 54 52 54 52 54

5 0 0 1 2 00000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 0 16 14 16 16 16 16 16 16

3 37 35 24 33 33 34 34 34 33

4 63 49 49 51 51 50 50 50 51

5 0 0 1 3 00000 0

Group 3: Wood duck,

mergansers EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 2 12 6 14 12 25 11 25 15

3 40 36 36 38 37 42 38 42 41

4 58 42 42 42 43 29 40 29 38

5 0 10 16 6 8 4 11 4 6

Terrestrial 09?
Table 4.9 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 19 5 11 10 22 9 22 13

3 36 34 33 38 37 41 38 43 41

4 63 46 39 45 44 33 41 31 40

5 01123694124 6

UCRBBLM/FS 1 05244646 5

2 16 23 18 24 21 29 22 29 27

3 74 45 38 38 39 46 42 46 43

4 10 19 28 23 26 15 24 15 19

5 0 8 14 11 10 4 8 4 6

UCRBCumEff 1 06566666 6

2 16 18 15 18 18 23 17 24 22

3 72 44 30 37 37 51 40 50 42

4 12 24 31 21 22 17 22 17 18

5 0 8 19 18 17 3 15 3 12

Group 4 : Goldeneyes EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 40 24 10 31 26 44 23 44 30

4 60 70 61 62 63 54 70 54 64

5 0629711272 6

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 41 30 15 31 25 42 22 42 29

4 59 65 65 59 55 56 67 56 65

5 0 5 20 10 20 2 11 2 6

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50 34 12 40 33 53 32 53 38

4 50 62 65 55 56 43 63 43 60

5 0 4 2 3 5 1 1 454 2

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 51 30 15 34 28 46 27 48 36

4 49 63 64 59 55 50 64 48 62

5 0 7 2 1 7 1 7 494 2

Group 5: Western snowy

plover EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 100 88 97 97 97 90 97 100

5 0 0 1 2 33 3 1 0 3 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 90 82 90 90 90 83 90 90

5 0 10 18 10 10 10 17 10 10

Group 6 : Harlequin duck EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 60 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 19

4 40 50 19 60 56 50 50 50 57

5 0 50 81 40 44 0 50 0 24

598 Terrestrial
Table 4.9 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 70 0 0 0 0 45 0 45 14

4 30 43 15 55 51 55 45 55 57

5 0 57 85 45 49 0 55 0 29

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 2 0 0000000 0

3 40 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 19

4 40 50 21 60 56 32 50 32 57

5 0 50 79 40 44 8 50 8 24

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 0 0000000 0

3 40 0 0 0 0 52 0 51 15

4 40 41 17 57 49 34 47 34 59

5 0 59 83 43 51 14 53 15 26

Group 7 : Herons, egrets EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 100 64 61 66 64 76 71 76 61

4 0 30 35 30 32 20 29 20 34

5 06444404 5

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 04242626 5

3 100 69 60 65 64 71 70 71 59

4 0 19 34 26 30 19 26 19 31

5 08454424 5

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 68 55 71 69 74 68 74 68

4 20 28 39 27 29 23 28 23 30

5 04622343 2

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 82 67 53 68 66 68 65 69 64

4 18 29 41 30 32 28 31 27 34

5 04622444 2

Group 8 : Dabbling ducks EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 30 12 9 12 11 11 10 11 11

3 70 58 46 67 67 73 52 73 65

4 0 28 41 19 20 16 38 16 24

5 02422000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 44 16 12 15 13 15 13 15 13

3 56 57 42 62 64 67 55 67 66

4 0 25 42 22 22 18 32 18 21

5 02411000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 18 4 3 5 4 12 4 12 5

3 80 60 47 66 69 66 56 66 61

4 2 35 45 28 26 22 40 22 34

5 01511000 0

Terrestrial 599
Table 4.9 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area' Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 5 8799989 8

3 75 58 43 57 57 63 52 63 56

4 0 31 44 34 34 28 38 28 36

5 03600020 0

Group 9 : Spotted sandpiper EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 46 54 43 50 50 51 50 51 52

3 54 46 51 50 50 49 50 49 48

4 00600000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 50 55 51 54 54 55 54 55 56

3 50 45 43 46 46 45 46 45 44

4 00600000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 48 54 43 50 50 51 50 51 52

3 52 46 51 50 50 49 50 49 48

4 00600000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 52 54 51 58 58 59 58 59 60

3 48 46 43 42 42 41 42 41 40

4 00600000 0

5 00000000 0

Group 10: Greater sandhill

crane EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 50000303 0

3 80 50 34 53 53 69 51 69 50

4 15 50 65 48 48 29 49 29 50

5 00100000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 83433535 3

3 79 56 39 56 56 70 55 70 54

4 14 41 56 41 41 25 43 25 44

5 00100000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 11 10 3 5 5 10 5 10 5

3 73 61 46 56 56 68 55 68 53

4 16 29 51 39 39 23 40 23 43

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 1 3 5344848 4

3 71 63 45 55 55 70 54 70 51

4 16 33 53 41 41 23 43 23 45

5 00000000 0

Group 11 : Rails, avocets EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000101 0

3 69 54 36 57 57 69 54 68 52

4 31 46 54 41 41 30 44 31 46

5 0 0 1 0 22020 2

600 Terrestrial
Table 4.9 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 82222323 2

3 64 55 36 57 58 70 52 69 52

4 28 43 53 39 38 27 44 28 44

5 00922020 2

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 59 45 31 47 47 63 45 62 43

4 41 55 60 52 52 37 54 38 56

5 00911010 1

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 42222323 2

3 64 50 34 52 52 69 48 68 50

4 32 48 56 45 45 28 49 29 47

5 00811010 1

Group 12 : Curlew, willet EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 28 10 3 13 13 21 9 21 9

4 73 90 95 88 88 79 91 79 89

5 00300000 3

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 33 14 5 16 16 24 13 24 13

4 68 86 93 84 84 76 88 76 85

5 00300000 3

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 28 10 3 13 13 18 9 18 9

4 73 90 95 88 88 83 91 83 89

5 00300000 3

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 33 14 5 16 16 24 13 24 13

4 68 86 93 84 84 76 88 76 85

5 00300000 3

Group 13 : Upland sandpiper EEIS BLM/FS" 1 20000000 0

2 6 8 0000000 0

3 3 0 0000000 0

4 0 0 0 2 10 25 10 25 15

5 0 100 100 98 90 75 90 75 85

EElSCumEff 1 20000000 0

2 6 6 0000000 0

3 3 2 0000000 0

4 0002 2 1 2 0 1 2 2

5 0 100 100 98 98 88 100 88 98

UCRBBLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 6 6 0000000 0

3 3 4 0000000 0

4 0 0 0 2 10 25 10 25 15

5 0 100 100 98 90 75 90 75 85

Terrestrial 601
Table 4.9 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Habitat & Species Groups Area' Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 6 0000000 0

3 3 4 0000000 0

4 0002 2 1 2 0 1 2 2

5 0 100 100 98 98 88 100 88 98

Group 14 : Common snipe EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 20 12 9 16 16 20 10 20 15

3 74 68 55 65 65 67 64 66 63

4 6 20 34 17 17 13 24 14 22

5 00222020 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 18 12 10 15 15 18 11 18 14

3 76 66 53 64 64 68 61 67 62

4 6 22 35 19 19 14 26 15 24

5 00222020 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 20 12 9 16 16 20 10 20 15

3 74 68 55 64 64 67 63 66 63

4 6 20 34 20 20 13 27 14 22

5 00200000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 18 12 10 15 15 18 11 18 14

3 76 66 53 64 64 68 61 67 62

4 6 22 35 19 19 14 26 15 24

5 00222020 0

Group 15: Migrant

sandpipers EEIS BLM/FS 1 32 20 15 24 24 25 16 25 24

2 52 51 48 48 48 48 49 48 48

3 16 29 35 28 28 27 35 27 28

4 00200000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 36 25 17 25 25 26 21 26 25

2 50 53 53 53 53 53 52 53 53

3 14 22 28 22 22 21 27 21 22

4 00200000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 28 12 5 12 12 22 6 22 12

2 57 59 57 59 59 54 58 54 59

3 15 29 36 29 29 24 36 24 29

4 00200000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 35 24 13 25 25 25 14 25 22

2 51 55 56 55 55 56 56 56 57

3 14 21 29 20 20 19 30 19 21

4 00200000 0

5 0 0 000000 0

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

2Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

602 Terrestrial
Table 4.10. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and species groups of waterbirds and shorebirds for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of

average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative2

Habitat & Species Group Area1 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Group 1: Open waterbirds EEIS BLM/FS 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5

EElSCumEff 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.3

UCRBCumEff 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.3

Group 2: Common loon EEIS BLM/FS 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

UCRB BLM/FS 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

UCRBCumEff 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4

Group 3: Wood duck, mergansers EEIS BLM/FS 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.4

EElSCumEff 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.6 3.2 3.4

UCRB BLM/FS 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9

UCRBCumEff 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1

Group 4: Goldeneyes EEIS BLM/FS 3.6 3.8 4.2 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.8

EElSCumEff 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.8

UCRB BLM/FS 3.5 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.6

UCRBCumEff 3.5 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7

Group 5: Western snowy plover EEIS BLM/FS 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0

EElSCumEff 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1

Group 6: Harlequin duck EEIS BLM/FS 3.4 4.5 4.8 4.4 4.4 3.53 4.5 3.53 4.1

EElSCumEff 3.3 4.6 4.9 4.5 4.5 3.63 4.6 3.63 4.2

UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 4.5 4.8 4.4 4.4 3.53 4.5 3.53 4.1

UCRBCumEff 3.2 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.5 3.63 4.5 3.63 4.1

Group 7: Herons, egrets EEIS BLM/FS 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4

EElSCumEff 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4

UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3

UCRBCumEff 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

Group 8: Dabbling ducks EEIS BLM/FS 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1

EElSCumEff 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.3

UCRBCumEff 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3

Group 9: Spotted sandpiper EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

EElSCumEff 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4

UCRB BLM/FS 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

Group 10: Greater sandhill crane EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5

EElSCumEff 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4

UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4

UCRBCumEff 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4

Group 11: Rails, avocets EEIS BLM/FS 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6

UCRBCumEff 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.5

Terrestrial 603
Table 4.10 (continued)

Period / Alternative2

Habitat & Species Group Area' H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Group 12: Curlew, willet EEIS BLM/FS 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.9

EElSCumEff 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.9

UCRB BLM/FS 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.9

UCRBCumEff 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.9

Group 13: Upland sandpiper EEIS BLM/FS4 2.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9

EElSCumEff 2.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9

UCRBCumEff 2.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0

Group 14: Common snipe EEIS BLM/FS 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1

EElSCumEff 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1

UCRBCumEff 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.1

Group 15: Migrant sandpipers EEIS BLM/FS 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0

EElSCumEff 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0

UCRB BLM/FS 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2

UCRBCumEff 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

3Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Upland gamebirds, hawks, falcons, "Methods for Assessing Effects on Terrestrial

pigeons, and owls Species."

Introduction—Four gamebirds, four hawks, Results—Scores from the panel assessment were

nine owls, band-tailed pigeons, bald eagles, and

 used

 as the final results with no adjustments,

merlins were selected for detailed analysis. One of

 Mean scores for each of the

 outcomes for each

these, the bald eagle, is federally threatened and

 sPecies

 ^e shown in table 4.11. Weighted means

five species (Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, sage «"*

 in table 4

-

12

-

 The

 number of species whose

grouse, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, and weighted mean fell into each outcome class under

northern goshawk) are Federal C2 Candidate

 each

 alternative is shown in figure 4.19. The

species. All of the selected species are associated weighted means for each alternative are shown in

with habitats that have declined from historic

 figure 4.20 and the numbers of species whose

conditions or are expected to decline under one or weighted mean outcome changed by more than

more alternatives. Eight of the species are primari- °-5 of an outcome class between current and the

ly forest associates, five are shrubland and grass- projected future under each alternative are shown

land associates, three are riparian associates, and

 in

 hgure 4.21.

four are woodland associates. Figure 4l9 indicates that historic patterns of

Methods—Methods used to assess this group of habitat were capable of supporting most of these

species followed those outlined in the section species in conditions described by Outcomes 2 or

©04 Terrestrial
3 as broadly distributed to patchy habitat, with

populations continuously interacting or acting as

metapopulations. Habitat for a few species,

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, burrowing owl,

northern pygmy-owl, and northern saw-whet owl,

displayed characteristics of Outcome 1. Habitat for

two species, boreal owl (EEIS planning area) and

band-tailed pigeon (UCRB planning area), was

projected to have supported only disjunct, isolated

populations. Habitats have declined from historic

to current and no species currently have a weighted

average Outcome of 1. Two species, Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse in both EIS areas and mountain quail in the UCRB, have weighted average

Outcomes of 5. Weighted average outcomes are

most positive under Alternatives 4 and 6, intermediate under Alternatives 3, 5, and 7, and least

favorable under Alternatives 1 and 2 (figs. 4.19 and

4.20). While this group of species has very diverse

habitat associations, Alternatives 4 and 6 were

judged as having positive effects for many of them

because of the emphasis of those alternatives on

ecosystem restoration. Restoration was interpreted

by the panel to apply to all ecosystems including

forested communities, native shrublands, native

grasslands, and a variety of riparian communities.

Results for each of the individual species are discussed in more detail below.

Discussion—

Blue grouse. Blue grouse use a mix of forested

stages in the ponderosa pine and montane forest

vegetation communities (Johnsgard 1983). They

tend to use more open forests, including riparian

woodland, during the breeding season. Early- and

late-serai forest stages are most important as winter habitat. Current management practices,

including practices that have altered fire regimes,

Figure 4.19 Raptors and Gamebirds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.19. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 20 species of raptors and gamebirds on Federal lands in

the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. See

"Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges of weighted mean

outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.20 Raptors and Gamebirds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.20. Mean outcome scores averaged over 20 species of raptors and gamebirds in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for

historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for

illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.21 Raptors and Gamebirds

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.21. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions under each alternative for 20 species of raptors and gamebirds in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean outcome of 0.5

units or greater.

Terrestrial
have reduced the amount and interspersion of Mountain quail. Primary habitats for mountain

early- and late-serai stages, resulting in a decline in quail are riparian zones with tree or shrub cover

habitat for blue grouse from historical to current (Ormiston 1966). Within the Basin, mountain

periods. Significant improvement in Federal habi- quail historically occupied habitats in western

tat is projected under Alternatives 3 through 7 Idaho and along the east slope of the Oregon

(table 4.11) because of projected increases in the Cascades Mountains. Habitat has declined on

amount of early- and late-serai stages, and because both Federal and non-Federal lands in both EIS

of a trend toward historic patterns of interspersion areas, most significantly in the UCRB where the

of serai stages. However, under any alternative, the species now only occurs in a few scattered pockets

habitat available to blue grouse is expected to pro- (Vogel and Reese 1995). The major factor causing

vide for continued existence of broad to patchy habitat decline has been the reduction in riparian

habitat distribution with largely interconnected shrub cover and change in riparian shrub species

populations. due to grazing. Modification of grazing practices

_ ... /-. i i • and active restoration of riparian shrub communiColumbian sharp-tailed grouse Columbian ^ ^^ ide ^ most benefits M moumain

sharp-tailed grouse is a Federal C2 Candidate ^ ^j^ Thus> Mtern3itives 4and6 are

species Populations of sharp-tailed grouse have jected M duce ^ best habhat outcomes over a

declined sharply in the past due to both hunting m iod Undef ^ altcmariveSf both habi.

and reduction m habitat. They currently occupy ^ ^ lations in ^ UCRB m jected to

11 o^Tu historic^ range (Johns- remain h and .^^ fQ • d

gard 1983). They were historic^ly more broadly Jhe likelihood of extirpations is projected to be

distributed withm the UCRB EIS area than m w hest under Mtm)Atives l and 2.

the r,r,lo area, but currently exist as only remnant

populations in both areas. Upland shrubland and Sage grouse. Sage grouse is a Federal C2 Candiupland herbland are primary habitats (Marks and date species. Primary habitat is upland shrubland

Marks 1987, Saab and Marks 1992), and both dominated by big sagebrush and perennial

have declined significantly due to conversion to bunchgrasses (Call and Maser 1985, Eng and

agriculture, grazing, and invasion of non-native Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad 1971). Habitat has

plants. Restoration efforts are needed to improve declined historically due to conversions to agrihabitat conditions for the species. No improve- culture and invasions of non-native plants. Popument is expected under Alternatives 1 and 2 lations have declined both in response to loss of

(table 4.11), while Alternatives 3 through 6 are habitat and as a result of hunting (Crawford and

projected to result in the most substantial Lutz 1985). Significant isolation of habitat and

improvements. Outcomes are expected to be populations is projected to have occurred in both

somewhat better under Alternatives 4 and 6 than EIS areas (table 4.11). Habitat restoration is posunder Alternatives 3 and 5 because of the more sible and is projected to result in the greatest

active approach to restoration taken in the former changes in habitat under Alternatives 4 and 6.

two alternatives. The difference is not a large one These alternatives, and to a lesser degree Alternahowever, because of the uncertainty surrounding tives 3, 5 and 7, would potentially reduce the

our ability to actively restore the native shrubland likelihood of both habitat and population isolaand herbland communities. Under any alterna- tion in both EIS areas,

tive, however, habitat conditions for sharp-tailed _ , ., . . _ . .. . .

grouse are projected to remain significantly below Band-tailed pigeon. Band-tailed pigeons are

historic conditions, with habitat capable of sup- P?^

 to^e ICBEMP

 assessment area as most

porting only scattered populations and continued °f thelr breeding range is on the west side of the

probability of local extirpations. The likelihood °KS

on and Washington Cascade Mountains,

of extirpations is projected to remain high (>

 Howfver' *e

[

e

 " som<;

 breed'n

g

 ran§e on the east

-

500/0) under Alternatives 1 and 2.

 ern sl°Pe of

 ^ Cascades> TMd migrating pigeons

Terrestrial 60?
also move through northern Idaho and western tures including small openings, clumps of trees of

Montana (Ryser 1985). Important habitat within differing densities, and multi-age stands. Alternathe Basin includes late-serai montane forest, late- tives 3 through 7 are projected to result in die

serai ponderosa pine forest, and woodland upland. greatest improvements in habitat, restoring it to

Habitat and populations are estimated to have near historic levels on Federal land. Litde likelideclined historically in the EEIS area, but little hood of population isolation or local extirpations

change is thought to have occurred historically in is projected under any of the alternatives,

the UCRB EIS area (table 4.11). It is projected . ,,T - • , , • ^ i i

that Alternatives 3 through 6 would restore habitat ^TM?"?TM hawk Ferrug'nous ^awk is a Federal

for band-tailed pigeons by increasing late-serai

 C2

 Candidate species. Important habitats for ferponderosa pine and montane forests, and by restor- TMgm

u

ous

 u

hawks'n

 ^ ^m « "P'f

 d ^land

ing historic patterns of interspersion of serai stages. (sagebrush, saltbush and greasewood), upland

Improvement is projected to be greatest in the herbland, woodland upland and to a lesser extent,

EEIS area, with habitat likely to support interact- «°»c hef

blf d (Bechard

 and Schumtz 1995)

ing or continuous populations. Alternatives 1, 2 "^Itat.^r feTMginous hawks is projected to have

and 7 are projected to provide little benefit. <¥ined from ^TM Icvds

 due

 ».** conversion

or grasslands and shrublands to agriculture and to

Bald eagle. Bald eagles are federally threatened. changes resulting from grazing. Roads and other

Habitat and populations were never continuously human disturbances may be a factor in die use of

distributed within the EIS areas, but were always habitat by ferruginous hawks as isolation from

naturally fragmented. Large trees near riparian human disturbance is considered a significant facareas are important for nesting (Anthony and tor affecting their nest placement (Gilmer and

Issacs 1989). Winter communal roosts are Stewart 1983). Alternatives 1 and 2 were projected

described as forest stands with old, open- to result in little change to the current situation for

structured trees close to feeding areas (Keister and ferruginous hawk habitat with some likelihood

Anthony 1983). Both habitat and populations remaining for isolation of local populations (table

have declined historically, with populations affect- 4.11). Alternatives 3 through 7 are expected to

ed by loss of habitat and other factors such as pes- result in some improvements due to restoration

ticides (Anthony and others 1993) and illegal activities in shrublands. Alternatives 4 and 6 would

killing (Bortolotti 1984). A recovery plan has been potentially result in the greatest improvements due

in effect and has resulted in upward trends in both to restoration activities. Alternative 7 was projected

habitat and population. These trends are expected to improve conditions by reducing road densities,

to continue under any of the alternatives. While » T i II-KT I i i • ^ i

none of the alternatives is expected to restore habi- NorAern goshawk. Northern goshawk is a Fedtat or populations to historic conditions, they all

 eral

,

C2

 Candidate species. It uses old stands of

would reduce the likelihood of population isola- multi-layered conifers for nesting (Reynolds and

«on and extirpation (table 4.11).

 others 1982' Reynolds and Wight 1978) and a

mixture or habitats including young forests and

Cooper's hawk. Cooper's hawks historically were small openings for foraging (Johnsgard 1990). Its

broadly and evenly distributed across the Basin. habitat is projected to have declined moderately

They tend to be habitat generalists, using all serai from historic conditions (table 4.11), but the actual

stages of montane and lower montane community status of populations in the EIS areas is not well

types in addition to upland and riparian wood- known. Restoration activities proposed under Alterland. Cooper's hawk habitat and populations are natives 4 and 6 are projected to have the greatest

projected to have declined moderately from his- beneficial effect on goshawk habitat by recreating

toric levels (table 4.11), but restoration of those historic patterns of interspersion of habitat types

habitats is possible under forest management prac- that are created by frequent, small-scale disturbance,

tices that promote aspen and a mix of forest struc608 Terrestrial
Table 4.11. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for raptors and gamebirds for evaluation of

ICBEMP management alternatives. -Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points.

High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood

scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

GMB Band-tailed pigeon EEIS BLM/FS 1 34 4 2 21416121 6 4

2 31 28 26 30 24 23 24 23 33

3 32 40 42 39 38 43 38 38 39

4 3 24 30 29 24 18 26 23 24

5 04000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 36 2 1 1 13 15 11 15 3

2 28 26 25 28 22 21 22 21 31

3 33 42 41 42 35 39 38 38 40

4 3 24 33 29 30 25 29 26 26

5 06000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 4

2 24 4 4 14 16 12 16 12

3 22 22 36 36 30 29 30 29 30

4 48 36 44 48 46 46 48 46 44

5 28 38 16 12 10 9 10 9 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 22 2 2 16 16 16 16 16

3 24 22 36 36 26 27 26 27 28

4 47 36 44 48 46 46 46 46 44

5 27 40 18 14 12 11 12 11 12

GMB Blue grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1 42 16 14 14 24 27 24 27 22

2 44 50 44 44 57 56 57 56 60

3 14 34 36 36 19 17 19 17 18

4 00660000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 44 16 16 16 25 27 25 27 23

2 42 49 42 43 56 56 56 56 59

3 14 35 36 35 19 17 19 17 18

4 00660000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 54 14 17 17 27 29 27 29 25

2 44 50 41 43 55 54 55 54 57

3 2 36 37 35 18 17 18 17 18

4 00550000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 56 14 17 17 27 29 27 27 25

2 44 50 43 44 56 55 55 57 59

3 0 36 40 39 17 16 18 16 16

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

GMB Columbian sharptailed grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1 7 4 0000000 0

2 2 6 0002222 2

3 0 2 2 2 14 16 14 16 6

4 0 20 32 30 47 58 51 57 45

5 0 78 66 68 37 24 33 25 47

Terrestrial ©OS
laoie 1.11 yconunueu;

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 7 6 0000000 0

2 2 4 0004444 4

3 02 2 2 14 22 14 22 10

4 0 32 39 37 46 52 50 51 41

5 0 66 59 61 36 22 32 23 45

UCRB BLM/FS 1 6 2 0000000 0

2 3 8 0002222 2

3 0 2 2 2 14 16 14 16 6

4 0 32 37 37 53 59 56 56 45

5 0 66 61 61 31 23 28 26 47

UCRBCumEff 1 6 6 0000000 0

2 3 4 0002222 2

3 02 2 2 16 24 16 24 12

4 0 36 42 42 50 53 53 50 41

5 0 62 56 56 32 21 29 24 45

G M B Mountain quail EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 2 000808 6

3 22 27 28 29 32 42 37 44 42

4 16 54 47 48 50 43 49 41 38

5 0 17 25 23 18 7 14 7 14

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 8 2000000 0

3 26 36 33 35 46 55 45 58 47

4 6 57 59 58 52 45 52 42 51

5 05872030 2

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 1 8 0000000 0

3 38 0 2 2 8 12 6 13 8

4 32 18 22 25 27 36 30 39 29

5 12 82 76 73 65 52 64 48 63

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 4 0000000 0

3 37 2 3 3 8 12 7 12 8

4 35 22 24 29 32 43 32 47 33

5 4 76 73 68 60 45 61 41 59

GMB Sage grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1 42 0 0081 6 7 20 5

2 54 16 8 12 31 47 38 46 43

3 4 52 47 52 41 33 41 30 42

4 0 28 41 32 18 4 12 4 10

5 04442020 0

EElSCumEff 1 48 0 0 0 2 14 1 18 5

2 49 22 10 12 35 49 42 48 43

3 3 49 48 55 44 34 44 31 43

4 0 25 38 29 17 3 11 3 9

5 04442020 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 44 0 0 0 14 20 13 22 5

2 52 18 10 18 22 42 30 43 41

3 4 56 49 50 44 34 41 31 42

4 0 24 39 30 20 4 16 4 12

5 02220000 0

M8 Terrestrial
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 50 0 0 0 1 14 1 16 3

2 47 22 10 18 33 48 40 49 42

3 3 53 50 51 47 35 44 32 44

4 0 23 38 29 19 3 15 3 11

5 02220000 0

R A P Bald eagle EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 32 6 10 15 15 19 15 19 16

3 60 42 52 62 68 70 70 70 70

4 8 42 30 23 17 11 15 11 14

5 0 1 0 800000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 44 0 8 16 16 23 16 24 21

3 50 45 49 58 64 66 66 65 66

4 6 43 33 26 20 11 18 11 13

5 0 1 2 1 0 00000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 32 6 10 15 15 19 15 19 16

3 60 42 52 62 68 70 70 70 70

4 8 42 30 23 17 11 15 11 14

5 0 1 0 800000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 44 0 8 16 16 23 16 24 21

3 50 45 49 58 64 66 66 65 66

4 6 43 33 26 20 11 18 11 13

5 0 1 2 1 0 00000 0

R A P Barred ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 012600000 8

2 12 60 49 37 23 21 23 21 56

3 56 28 33 34 45 42 44 44 32

4 18 0 12 29 32 35 33 35 4

5 1 4 0000200 0

EElSCumEff 1 06806666 0

2 0 52 42 32 24 24 24 24 52

3 6 42 38 41 45 41 45 43 36

4 10 0 12 27 25 29 25 27 12

5 8 4 0000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 2286667 6 1 0

2 18 32 51 50 51 50 56 48 62

3 58 38 35 32 32 34 35 36 26

4 22 28 6 12 11 10 2 10 2

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 0 2 12 6 10 10 10 10 8

2 0 24 51 51 47 47 45 47 60

3 0 34 31 31 31 33 33 34 22

4 14 32 6 12 12 10 12 9 10

5 8 6 8000000 0

R A P Boreal ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 20000000 2

2 20222222 2

3 24 18 16 16 27 28 26 28 38

4 32 40 37 39 36 35 35 35 36

5 40 42 45 43 35 35 37 35 22

Terrestrial ©11
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 2

2 22222222 2

3 16 16 17 17 20 20 20 20 29

4 46 38 35 37 39 38 37 38 40

5 36 44 46 44 39 40 41 40 27

UCRBBLM/FS 1 20222222 3

2 36 7 10 10 23 24 22 23 26

3 36 42 34 36 37 36 36 39 40

4 24 24 39 38 32 32 34 32 30

5 2 27 15 14 6 6 6 4 1

UCRBCumEff 1 00222222 3

2 22 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 12

3 38 40 36 36 44 45 44 47 49

4 30 26 39 40 40 39 39 39 36

5 10 27 13 12 4 4 5 2 0

R A P Burrowing ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 5 6 0000000 0

2 38 33 31 31 31 37 35 39 34

3 6 42 44 44 47 44 44 42 45

4 0 21 21 21 22 19 21 19 21

5 04440000 0

EElSCumEff 1 7 0 0000000 0

2 26 38 33 33 32 37 36 39 35

3 4 43 48 47 47 46 45 45 43

4 0 19 17 18 21 17 19 16 22

5 00220000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 5 2 0000000 0

2 42 36 32 32 34 39 36 41 35

3 6 40 42 40 47 44 44 42 45

4 0 20 20 22 19 17 20 17 20

5 04660000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 6 5 0000000 0

2 31 40 34 34 34 38 36 40 35

3 4 41 49 48 49 47 47 46 45

4 0 19 15 16 17 15 17 14 20

5 00220000 0

RAP Cooper's hawk EEIS BLM/FS 1 34 14 12 12 28 30 28 30 30

2 50 36 34 38 40 50 40 50 40

3 14 48 50 46 30 20 30 20 28

4 22442020 2

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 38 19 18 18 34 36 34 36 35

2 52 41 39 43 46 54 46 54 45

3 10 40 41 37 20 10 20 10 20

4 00220000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 34 15 15 15 30 31 30 31 31

2 50 36 34 38 40 50 40 50 40

3 14 47 47 43 28 19 28 19 27

4 22442020 2

5 00000000 0

©12 Terrestrial
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 38 16 16 16 31 32 31 32 32

2 52 43 40 44 48 58 48 58 48

3 10 41 42 38 21 10 21 10 20

4 00220000 0

5 00000000 0

R A P Ferruginous hawk EEIS BLM/FS 1 20000000 0

2 66 24 23 28 38 52 39 56 44

3 32 56 57 54 57 46 56 42 52

4 0 18 18 14 5 2 5 2 4

5 02240000 0

EElSCumEff 1 60000000 0

2 70 29 32 33 41 55 40 57 49

3 24 66 66 65 59 45 60 43 51

4 05220000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 20000000 0

2 64 22 21 26 36 50 37 54 42

3 34 58 59 56 59 48 58 44 54

4 0 18 18 14 5 2 5 2 4

5 02240000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 60000000 0

2 70 29 32 33 41 55 40 57 49

3 24 66 66 65 59 45 60 43 51

4 05220000 0

5 00000000 0

R A P Flammulated ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 10000000 0

2 76 2 1 6 19 26 18 22 14

3 21 40 20 32 56 60 56 62 51

4 2 38 39 46 21 13 22 14 27

5 0 20 40 16 4 1 4 2 8

EElSCumEff 1 10000000 0

2 76 2 1 5 18 25 17 21 13

3 21 39 19 32 57 61 56 61 51

4 2 39 38 47 21 13 23 16 28

5 0 20 42 16 4 1 4 2 8

UCRB BLM/FS 1 10000000 0

2 76 2 1 6 19 26 18 22 14

3 21 40 20 32 56 60 56 62 51

4 2 38 39 46 21 13 22 14 27

5 0 20 40 16 4 1 4 2 8

UCRBCumEff 1 10000000 0

2 76 2 1 6 19 26 18 22 14

3 21 40 20 32 56 60 56 62 51

4 2 38 39 46 21 13 22 14 27

5 0 20 40 16 4 1 4 2 8

R A P Great gray ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 4042222 2

3 48 44 38 41 46 49 46 49 50

4 36 32 40 35 46 45 45 45 30

5 6 20 22 20 6 4 7 4 18

Terrestrial $13
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 1 3 7448888 8

3 51 44 43 43 48 50 48 50 50

4 30 29 31 33 38 38 37 38 24

5 6 20 22 20 6 4 7 4 18

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 20 6 14 16 20 22 20 22 23

3 62 46 44 45 56 56 55 56 43

4 16 38 34 31 20 22 24 22 32

5 2 1 0 884010 2

UCRBCumEff 1 20000000 0

2 22 8 18 18 22 24 22 24 27

3 58 44 39 41 52 52 51 52 38

4 16 39 35 33 22 24 26 24 33

5 29884010 2

R A P Long-eared ow l EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 21 10 8 8 14 19 15 19 11

3 53 38 33 29 43 46 41 46 41

4 21 43 46 49 39 30 39 30 40

5 5 10 14 15 5 5 5 5 8

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 26 14 10 11 19 23 19 23 14

3 51 46 41 38 48 53 48 53 49

4 19 35 39 43 31 23 31 23 30

5 4 5 1 0 93333 8

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 21 8 6 5 11 15 11 14 6

3 53 38 33 31 44 48 44 48 43

4 21 45 48 49 40 33 40 33 44

5 5 10 14 15 5 5 5 5 8

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 28 10 6 6 14 18 13 16 6

3 50 48 43 39 46 50 48 51 48

4 19 38 41 46 38 30 38 30 39

5 4 5 1 0 93333 8

R A P Merlin EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 30 20 16 15 22 24 20 24 19

3 50 49 46 44 51 54 53 54 54

4 20 29 35 37 25 21 25 21 24

5 02342121 3

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 35 25 19 19 25 27 23 28 22

3 52 47 50 50 49 51 52 51 52

4 13 28 29 29 25 22 24 21 24

5 00221010 2

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 30 20 19 17 25 27 22 27 21

3 51 53 48 46 53 53 55 53 57

4 19 27 33 37 22 20 23 20 22

5 00000000 0

614 Terrestrial
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area' Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 33 27 22 20 28 30 25 29 24

3 53 50 53 52 52 51 54 52 56

4 14 23 25 28 20 19 21 19 20

5 00000000 0

RAP Northern goshawk EEIS BLM/FS 1 16 8 5 5 10 16 9 16 11

2 54 46 35 37 40 48 41 50 44

3 30 35 44 45 42 29 42 28 37

4 0 11 16 13 8 7 8 6 8

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 20 10 6 6 9 20 8 20 12

2 55 51 39 39 45 50 46 51 47

3 25 32 46 48 39 24 40 27 37

4 07977662 4

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 16 9 6 6 7 16 6 16 11

2 56 38 33 34 41 47 42 49 49

3 28 36 54 55 48 34 48 33 40

4 0 1 7 754342 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 20 10 8 8 10 20 9 20 14

2 52 44 35 36 44 42 44 44 43

3 28 32 53 53 44 37 45 35 42

4 0 14 4 3 2 1 2 1 1

5 00000000 0

RAP Northern pygmyowl EEIS BLM/FS 1 65 44 35 45 54 59 54 59 51

2 35 53 60 53 44 40 44 40 46

3 04533131 3

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 66 45 36 46 55 60 55 60 53

2 34 53 60 53 44 40 44 40 46

3 03411010 1

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 68 46 38 48 54 61 54 61 51

2 33 50 58 50 44 38 44 38 46

3 04533131 3

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 69 48 39 49 55 63 55 63 53

2 31 50 58 50 44 38 44 38 46

3 03411010 1

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 61$
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area' Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

RAP Northern sawwhet owl EEISBLM/FS 1 71 37 32 34 49 56 49 61 49

2 27 56 58 58 41 38 41 34 44

3 2 7 10 8 10 6 10 5 7

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 74 38 32 34 49 57 49 62 50

2 24 56 60 60 43 39 43 36 45

3 26868482 5

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 73 39 32 36 51 58 51 63 51

2 27 54 60 56 41 38 41 34 42

3 07888483 7

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 76 40 32 36 51 59 51 64 52

2 24 54 62 58 43 39 43 36 43

3 06666260 5

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

RAP Swainson's hawk EEISBLM/FS 1 23 32 32 32 35 35 35 35 31

2 59 51 53 53 51 52 51 53 55

3 14 17 15 15 14 13 14 12 14

4 40000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 23 27 27 27 30 30 30 30 26

2 59 51 53 53 54 55 54 56 58

3 14 20 18 18 14 14 14 14 14

4 42222120 2

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 23 32 32 32 35 35 35 35 31

2 53 51 53 53 51 52 51 53 55

3 20 17 15 15 14 13 14 12 14

4 40000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 23 27 27 27 30 30 30 30 26

2 53 51 53 53 54 55 54 56 58

3 20 20 18 18 14 14 14 14 14

4 42222120 2

5 00000000 0

RAP Western screech

o w l EEISBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 56 33 22 31 36 46 38 47 43

3 44 58 67 61 58 53 56 53 57

4 0 9 1 1 86160 0

5 00000000 0

<&£ Terrestrial
Table 4.11 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 61 29 20 32 39 48 42 50 47

3 39 59 67 61 56 52 54 50 53

4 0 1 2 1 3 75040 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 56 33 22 31 36 46 38 47 43

3 44 58 67 61 58 53 56 53 57

4 0 9 1 1 86160 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 59 31 22 32 37 47 40 49 45

3 41 57 65 61 58 53 56 51 55

4 0 1 2 1 3 75040 0

5 00000000 0

'Group: GMB - gamebird; RAP - raptor.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

Under other alternatives, little change from cur- single-story lower montane forest. The distriburent habitat conditions is anticipated. Habitat is tion of merlins tends to be naturally patchy,

projected to support a population with higher Habitat has declined slightly from its historic conlikelihood of remaining broadly-distributed under dition (table 4.11) due to the reduction in singleAlternatives 4 and 6, with greater patchiness pro- story lower montane forest and upland woodland,

jected under other alternatives. Moderate habitat declines are projected to contin-

„ , , . „ ,ii .1 ue under Alternatives 1 and 2 with little change

Swamsons hawk. Swainsons hawks use a wide occurring under the other alternatives. Small likevariety of open habitats including riparian shrub- ,ihoods of

 ,Qcal ladon isolation are -ected

land, upland herbland, upland shrubland, non- tQ ^^ undef ^ ^^^

native grasses, and agricultural lands. 1 heir habitat and population are projected to have changed Barred owl. Barred owls, recent invaders in the

little from historic conditions because of their assessment area, now occupy suitable habitat

ability to adapt to human-induced changes. Little throughout the Basin. Primary habitats within the

future change is expected under the alternatives. Basin are late-serai montane and subalpine multiThe most significant concern for Swainson's layered forest, and riparian woodland. The invahawks is the use of pesticides on winter range in sion of barred owls into the area may be due in

south and central America. part to increases in multi-layered forest that have

.... T ... - ... . resulted from fire suppression. The habitats that Merlin. Important habitats for merlin in the t ^j ^ ^ ^^ believed w be ^

Basin include riparian herb, shrub and woodland; j^ (han ^^ levds (taWe 4 n) In ^

upland herb, shrub, and woodland; and late-serai, E£IS ^ ^^ montjme multi_lavered forest

Terrestrial 61?
is projected to decline under all alternatives except under current conditions or Alternatives 1 and 2.

Alternative 7, with the greatest declines under „ . . . . ,. .. .

Alternatives 4 and 6. Such a decline could be seen Burrowing owl. Burrowing owls are distributed

as beneficial by potentially slowing the invasion throughout the grasslands and shrublands in the

by barred owls. By contrast, this habitat is project- Basin with sagebrush steppe and native grassland

ed to increase in the UCRB EIS area because of P^dfe^ , 'I

 (GwZn

.

md

. ^n? .

the large area of fire- and harvest-influenced forest

 1989)' ^ are

 ^tedas.

 a

u

Federal C2

,

 Cand'date

i MI i i j. • • I • species. Historically, their habitats and populathat will progress to late-serai condition within f ... , '\ . /• • i i i • ij „„ tions were likely to have been rairly broad in distribution, but have declined due to conversion of

Boreal owl. Key habitats for boreal owls within habitat to agriculture and other influences such

the Basin are late-serai single- and multi-story sub- as pesticides (Haug and others 1993). Their curalpine forests. Boreal owls are exclusively secondary rent situation consists of habitat with gaps large

cavity nesters. Hayward and others (1993) found enough to result in some likelihood of populadiat boreal owls prefer more complex forests, with tion isolation (table 4.11). No significant change

higher basal area, more large trees, and less under- in habitat was projected under the alternatives,

story development than average sites. They are dis- although restoration efforts under Alternatives 4

tributed in relatively large, disjunct patches in the and 6 would have some beneficial effect comUCRB EIS area and in isolated, small patches pared to other alternatives.

within the EEIS area. Their distribution is deter- _, , . . „. . . .

JLI.I . ii • T • rlammulated owl. rlammulated owls occur mined by habitat and elevation. In surveys in . . . _ . . . . . ....

TJ L j \n /-u j j L IOO-A throughout the Basin where habitat is available.

Idaho and Montana (Hayward and others, 1987), ~. ° . .. . ,

75 percent of boreal owl locations were above

 They m obhgate

f

cavitv neste

f

rs whos/ Primai7

5,227 feet elevation. Different patterns of habitat ^abltat consists of a mosai

j

c

 °!?Pen forestj'

 dense

and species outcomes were projected for the two ^'-^ ^" grasslands^Y^

 a"d

 \enT

EIS areas (table 4.11). The EEIS area has never

 1994)' The

 °Pen forest Preferred by ^ci^d

supported broadly distributed populations of bore- °wls con^

ns

 ^ge Ponderosa pme and Douglasal owls, so the projected historic outcomes were of ^ «ees (Goggms 1985). Such open forests have

scattered and isolated habitat and populations. A d^

med df to l°&°£ and fire

 suppression. Both

!• L • • • i • -JU habitat and populations or rlammulated owls are

slight increase in isolation was pro ected to have . i i i i- ,r i- ••

ir i • • j- • j pro ected to have declined rrom a historic situation

occurred rrom historic to current conditions and /• i i i i i • • • i , • JA I -1JT A o r largely connected habitat, t o a current situation would continue under Alternatives 1 and 2. A r ° , ... ,,, . ., . .,-

i i j A i or scattered and isolated habitat with a significant modest improvement was pro ected under Alterna- ,.,,., • r, , . . / , , / , ?\

auu-7i_ r j j-- likelihood or local extirpations (table 4.11).

tives 3 through 7. However, under any conditions, _ .. . .

 r

 . . ' i i i j i • i i • -ii • j Declines are pro ected to continue under Alternaboreal owls and their habitat will remain scattered . , . .

 r

. ' . ,.,,., , r

in isolated areas in the EEIS area. The UCRB EIS "ve l wlth ^ ^creasing likelihood of extirpations,

area historically supported more habitat and popu- Improvement is projected under Alternatives 2

lations that were reasonably well-connected.

 t

f

hrouSh 7 wlth the

 8reatest TMPTMeTMnt resulting

Habitat has declined historically due to both bar- from restoration practices proposed under Alternavest and natural disturbances. Currently, boreal owl

 tlves 4

 .

and

 6. Restoration practices would return

habitat and populations are thought to be more vegetation to historic patterns of interspersion.

isolated with higher chances of extirpation than Alternatives 3 and 5 are projected to have a smaller

they were historically. The status of boreal owls and positive effect because of some emphasis on timber

their habitat is projected to improve under all alter- Production m potential flammulated habitat,

natives, with the greatest improvements on Federal Alternatives 2 and 7 are also projected to have

land under Alternatives 3 through 7. Some likeli-

 smaller

 Posltlve ^fj

 because

 °u

f the

L

ir emPhaslS

u j c u -ju on preservation or old rorest rather than active

hood or extirpation would remain under these *

alternatives, but the likelihood would be less than

 res ora lon'

618 Terrestrial
Table 4.12. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of raptors and gamebirds for evaluation

of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average

likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

GMB Band-tailed pigeon EEIS BLM/FS 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8

EElSCumEff 2.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.54 3.54 3.64 3.54 3.44

UCRBCumEff 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.54 3.54 3.5" 3.54 3.54

GMB Blue grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0

EElSCumEff 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

UCRBCumEff 1.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

GMB Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1.3 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.24 4.04 4.24 4.14 4.4

EElSCumEff 1.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.14 3.94 4.14 3.94 4.3

UCRB BLM/FS 1.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.14 4.0" 4.14 4.14 4.4

UCRBCumEff 1.3 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.14 4.0" 4.14 4.3

GMB Mountain quail EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 3.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6

UCRBCumEff 3.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.5

GMB Sage grouse EEIS BLM/FS 1.6 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.34 2.64 2.24 2.6"

EElSCumEff 1.6 3.1 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.3" 2.7 2.2" 2.64

UCRB BLM/FS 1.6 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.24 2.64 2.2" 2.6

UCRBCumEff 1.5 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.8 2.34 2.7 2.2" 2.6

RAP Bald eagle EEIS BLM/FS 2.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.04 2.9" 3.04 2.94 3.04

EElSCumEff 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.14 3.0" 2.91 3.04 2.94 2.94

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.0" 2.94 3.04 2.94 3.04

UCRBCumEff 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.1" 3.04 2.94 3.04 2.94 2.9

RAP Barred owl EEIS BLM/FS 3.3 2.2 2.5 2.94 3.14 3.2" 3.14 3.1" 2.3

EElSCumEff 4.8 2.4 2.5 3.04 2.9" 2.94 2.9" 2.94 2.6

UCRB BLM/FS 3.0 2.9 2.44 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.34 2.5 2.24

UCRBCumEff 4.9 3.2 2.3" 2.54 2.5" 2.44 2.5" 2.4" 2.34

RAP Boreal owl EEIS BLM/FS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.74

EElSCumEff 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.24 3.2" 3.2" 3.14 3.04

UCRBCumEff 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2"

RAP Burrowing owl EEIS BLM/FS 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9

EElSCumEff 1.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 1.5 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9

UCRBCumEff 1.4 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.9

RAP Cooper's hawk EEIS BLM/FS 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.0

EElSCumEff 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9

UCRB BLM/FS 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0

UCRBCumEff 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9

RAP Ferruginous hawk EEIS BLM/FS 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.54 2.6

EElSCumEff 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5" 2.6

UCRBCumEff 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5

Terrestrial ©IS
Table 4.12 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

RAP Flammulated owl EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.14 2.9* 3.14 3.04 3.3

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.14 2.9* 3.14 3.04 3.3

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.14 2.9" 3.14 3.04 3.3

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.1" 2.94 3.14 3.04 3.3

RAP Great gray owl EEIS BLM/FS 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1

UCRBCumEff 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1

RAP Long-eared owl EEIS BLM/FS 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.5

EElSCumEff 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.4

UCRB BLM/FS 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.6

UCRBCumEff 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.5

RAP Merlin EEIS BLM/FS 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1

EElSCumEff 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0

UCRBCumEff 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0

RAP Northern goshawk EEIS BLM/FS 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.4

EElSCumEff 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.3

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.3

UCRBCumEff 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.3

RAP Northern pygmy-owl EEIS BLM/FS 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5

EElSCumEff 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5

UCRBCumEff 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5

RAP Northern saw-whet owl EEIS BLM/FS 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6

EElSCumEff 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6

UCRB BLM/FS 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6

UCRBCumEff 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5

RAP Swainson's hawk EEIS BLM/FS 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

EElSCumEff 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

UCRBCumEff 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9

RAP Western screech owl EEIS BLM/FS 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6

EElSCumEff 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6

UCRBCumEff 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6

'Group: GMB - gamebird; RAP - raptor.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

€28 Terrestrial
Great gray owl. Great gray owls occur through- Northern pygmy-owl and northern saw-whet owl.

out the Basin where habitat exists. They use nest Northern pygmy-owls and northern saw-whet owls

trees in a variety of habitats, but most are located have similar habitat associations, using mid- to

in mature or older stands of mixed-conifer (Bull late-serai mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests

and Henjum 1990). Natural nest sites are most in summer and shrubby and riparian vegetation in

frequently in large-diameter (> 20 inches dbh) winter. Both species of owls are secondary cavity

dead trees in cavities or on stick platforms (Bull nesters in snags. They are broadly distributed withand Henjum 1990). They forage in open forests in the Basin, but habitat has likely declined moderwhich may be partially logged or unlogged. Down ately from historic conditions for both species,

woody material appears to be an important com- resulting in a pattern of larger habitat gaps (table

ponent of foraging habitat (Bull and Henjum 4.11). Little change from current conditions is

1990). Meadows adjoining forests also appear to projected for Alternatives 1 and 2, while Alternaprovide important foraging habitat (Forsman and tives 3 through 7 are projected to restore more

Bryan 1987). Great gray owls were likely never broadly distributed habitat. The restoration

broadly distributed, but rather, occurred in a emphasis of Alternatives 4 and 6 is projected to be

patchy distribution with interaction among local most positive. Local population isolation or extirpopulations. Habitat has declined from historic pation is unlikely under any alternative,

conditions resulting in a pattern of more isolated ,vr . . wr . .

habitat patches (table 4.11). Declines have been

 Western sc«jech owl. Western screech owls occugreatest in the UCRB EIS area where old forest is ^ riparian deciduous habitat throughout the

projected to have declined more substantially. ^asm.

 Declmes froTM hls

L

tonc condlt;ons m *1S

 .

Little change in habitat outcomes is projected

 habltat

 ^ PT0^

d to

 h^ve resulted in a pattern

under Alternatives 1 and 2, with more improve-

 of

 increasing patchmess and increasing isolation of

ment projected under Alternatives 3 through 6. screech owl habitat and populations. These trends

Management proposed under these alternatives TM Pr°Jected to contmue under ^f

 na

»ve *•

would restore vegetation to natural patterns favor- Moderate improvement is projected under other

able to great gray owls. The outcome of Alterna- alternatives. There is little likelihood of local poputive 7 is less certain because of the potential for

 latlon lsolatlon or ex«rpation under any alternative,

catastrophic fires in reserves. The likelihood of

local extirpations would remain (> 10%) under Woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts

Alternatives 1, 2 and 7 in the EEIS area. Introduction—The ICBEMP assessment area

Long-eared owl. Long-eared owls typically nest database lists 14 species of woodpeckers, 3 species

in willows, cottonwoods, and junipers adjacent to

 of

 nuthatches, and 3 species of swifts that occur

shrubland (Craig and Trost 1979, Marks 1986,

 within the Basin

-

 We

 selected nine species of

Marks and Yensen 1980, Thurow and White woodpeckers, two species of nuthatches, and one

1984), or in ponderosa pine or mixed-conifer

 sPecies of swift for

 viability assessments. We recforests. Foraging habitat is primarily open forests ommend that assessment of two species of wood-

(Bull and others 1989) and shrub habitats. These Peckers (yellow-bellied sapsucker and red-breasted

habitats have likely declined from historic condi- sapsucker) be conducted at a fine scale because of

tion with current habitat occurring in a patchy

 their local

 distributions within the Basin. In all

pattern. This pattern creates the potential for pop-

 cases. species were selected for assessment because

ulation isolation. Alternatives 3 through 7 propose

 their

 habitats were projected to decline under at

management practices that focus on restoration of

 least one

 of the alternatives. Two of the species

natural vegetative patterns and are projected to originally assessed in this group (western bluebird

reverse the declining trend.

 an^ chestnut-backed chickadee) were moved to

the passerine group for analysis and are not

included here.

Terrestrial 621
Methods—We used standard methods, as out- conditions of the Vaux's swift had the lowest outlined in overall methods (Methods for Assessing comes, averaging close to Outcome 4 for all alterEflFects on Terrestrial Species), for the assessment of natives except Alternative 7, which was projected

woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts. Because all of to support Outcome 3. Habitat outcomes for the

these species are cavity nesters, we paid special white-headed woodpecker were close to Outcome

attention to provisions for the conservation and 4 for current conditions and for Alternatives 1

management of snags and cavity-bearing trees through 3, and averaged closer to Outcome 3 for

under each preliminary draft EIS alternative. We Alternatives 4 through 7.

could not predict actual numbers of snags that ,„,. , , , ,

• •it j u i • T j Weighted average outcomes, averaged among the might be present under the alternatives. Instead, ,„

 &

 . ,~ / ~-,\ ,. , r L Li. j i i j- • r 12 species (rig. 4.23), were highest tor the historic

we relied on the general direction tor snag manage- .

r

. °. . ~

v

 ~ ,_

, °. rti - L j period, averaging between Outcomes 2 and 3.

ment and assumptions ror habitat response, based 5-^ i i i • • i i j c

 r

, .

 r j Current outcomes were lower than historic levels

on degree or emphasis on snag management under , , ,. , , , ~. _

, ,

 r i j • u • • r and averaged slightly above Outcome 3; average

each alternative, coupled with projections or ir i r A i • r-LiLL - r L • T outcomes were lower than current tor Alternatives

amounts or suitable habitat ror each species. In „ , ,. ... /- ., . _ ,j. . , r , . i 2 and 5, were similar to current for Alternatives 2 addition, several or the species are known to use , „ , , . , , r ij. j, . , and 3, and were higher than current ror

very large-diameter snags and these snags might ,, . , ^ \-,,t> / -„.»

V £„ j j u inn • Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 (rig. 4.23).

not be hilly represented under the 100-year time-

 e

frame of the projections. Therefore, we extended Compared with current habitat conditions,

the time from the normal 100 years to more than weighted average outcomes for habitat conditions

200 years to allow more time for development of on Federal lands in the EEIS area were projected

large-diameter snags under the alternatives. We to increase by at least 0.5 for four species under

modified panel results for four species (Vaux's swift, Alternatives 4, 6, and 7, and to decrease by that

pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, amount for nine species under Alternative 1 and

and downy woodpecker) based on our interpreta- for two species under Alternative 5 (fig. 4.24).

tion of key features of particular alternatives, our Habitat outcomes showed little change from curinterpretation of the panelist's intent as recorded in rent conditions under Alternatives 2 and 3. In the

the panel notes, and additional clarification about UCRB EIS area, the pattern was identical to that

snag management practices proposed under the of the EEIS area for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

alternatives that was made available by the land- Habitat outcomes for ten species are projected to

scape analysis team after the panel deliberations. decrease from current conditions under AlternaT, . n i r L L-I- c tive 1 and for one species under Alternative 5. Results—Results or the viability assessment for

 r

the 12 species of woodpeckers, nuthatches, and Discussion—The general pattern of habitat

swifts are listed in tables 4.13 and 4.14. Habitat response under the scenarios we evaluated primarconditions on federally administered lands were ily reflects the likely distribution and abundance

generally judged to be similar between the EEIS of snags suitable for nesting. According to the

and UCRB EIS planning areas. Habitat condi- assumptions for habitat response that were pretions for the 12 species were not projected to pared by the ICBEMP Science Team and EIS

attain Outcome 1 under historic, current, or teams, Alternatives 1 through 7 are expected to

future periods in either the EEIS or UCRB areas have the following levels of emphasis and project-

(table 4.14 and fig. 4.22). We judged that habitat ed trends for snags:

conditions of nine species attained Outcome 2 ;

under historic conditions and that habitat for one Alternative

species (hairy woodpecker) i s currently a t that 1234 5 6 7

level. No species were judged to attain Outcome 2 .. , v , ,, .. _ ,.. , .. ,„ ... . ......

j A i • i j c ic A TIA u u- N (—) L (-) M (0) H (+) M (0) H (++) M (0)

under Alternatives 1 and 5 (fig. 4.22). Habitat : : — — — L.1 .—: :_:_

622 Terrestrial
where: N = None, L = Low, M = Moderate,

H = High; 0 = stable projected trend, + = upward

trend, ++ = strong upward trend, - = downward

trend, and — = strong downward trend. A

comparison of these estimates with the average

outcomes for the 12 species (fig. 4.23) shows a

general concordance, except that the outcomes

for Alternative 7, for which habitat response was

assumed to be moderate with stable trend, were

comparable to those of Alternatives 4 and 6.

Alternatives 4 and 6 had high emphasis on snag

habitat. Outcomes were greater for Alternative 7

because the reserve system and retention of all

late-serai forest stands outside of reserves under

this alternative would likely lead to greater numbers of large-diameter snags over the long run.

Habitat conditions of three species, white-headed

woodpecker, Vaux's swift, and Lewis' woodpecker,

were projected to decrease to Outcome 4 under

some of the alternatives. The white-headed

woodpecker is strongly associated with largediameter ponderosa pines which it uses for foraging and nesting (Bull 1980; Dixon 1995; Garrett

and others, in press; Milne and Hejl 1989).

Under current conditions, stands of mature ponderosa pine are small and disjunct resulting in

small and isolated subpopulations. Projected

habitat conditions are expected to resemble current conditions under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3,

but are expected to increase under Alternatives 4

through 7. This would especially be true under

Alternatives 4 and 6 which place greater emphasis

on restoration of late-serai lower montane forest

(table 4.14).

Figure 4.22 Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, Swifts

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.22. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 12 species of woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts on

Federal lands in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS

alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges

of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.23 Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, Swifts

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.23. Mean outcome scores averaged over 12 species of woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on

Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.24 Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, Swifts

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.24. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions under each alternative for 12 species of

woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean

outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
Table 4.13. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for woodpeckers, nuthatches, and swifts for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100

points. High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Black-backed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 80 3 0 8 8 15 0 15 15

3 20 83 19 68 58 73 51 73 80

4 0 15 58 25 35 13 46 13 5

5 0 0 2 4 00030 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 80 0 0 5 5 13 0 13 13

3 20 80 16 65 55 70 46 70 73

4 0 20 55 30 40 18 49 18 15

5 0 0 2 9 00050 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 80 5 4 15 10 23 5 25 23

3 20 80 16 70 64 68 44 65 73

4 0 15 59 15 26 10 49 10 5

5 0 0 2 1 00030 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 80 0 0 8 5 13 0 15 15

3 20 80 15 70 63 68 41 65 70

4 0 20 59 23 33 20 54 20 15

5 0 0 2 6 00050 0

Downy woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS" 1 2 5 0000000 0

2 75 30 10 23 18 25 13 28 18

3 0 70 70 73 78 73 65 70 78

4 0 0 2 0 55 3 2 3 3 5

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 2 5 0000000 0

2 75 25 15 18 18 25 15 28 23

3 0 75 75 80 80 73 70 73 75

4 0 0 1 0 33 3 1 5 0 3

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS4 1 2 5 0000000 0

2 75 33 3 28 25 25 20 28 13

3 0 68 75 68 70 73 58 70 80

4 0 0 2 3 55 3 2 3 3 8

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 2 5 0000000 0

2 75 30 3 28 25 25 20 28 13

3 0 70 80 68 70 73 63 73 80

4 0 0 1 8 55 3 1 8 0 8

5 00000000 0

Hairy woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 80 45 65 58 58 43 60 80

3 13 20 55 35 43 43 58 40 20

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 6£5
Table 4.13 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 85 89 43 53 58 60 43 60 70

3 15 11 58 48 43 40 58 40 30

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 85 50 66 55 60 45 65 83

3 13 15 50 34 45 40 55 35 18

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 85 45 55 60 63 45 65 75

3 13 15 55 45 40 38 55 35 25

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

Lewis'woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 1 10 0 000000 0

2 47 10 0 0 0 53 0 47 43

3 43 27 0 47 55 40 23 47 53

4 0 63 50 53 45 7 60 7 3

5 0 0 5 0 00 0 1 7 0 0

EElSCumEff 1 1 0 0000000 0

2 27 10 0 0 0 17 0 17 17

3 47 17 0 17 35 70 0 67 67

4 17 47 23 70 58 13 40 17 17

5 0 27 77 13 7 0 60 0 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 1 5 0000000 0

2 45 15 0 0 0 45 0 40 35

3 40 30 0 60 80 45 25 50 60

4 0 55 50 40 20 10 50 10 5

5 0 0 5 0 00 0 2 5 0 0

UCRBCumEff 1 1 5 0000000 0

2 1 5 1 5 000000 0

3 45 15 0 20 35 80 0 75 75

4 25 30 25 60 55 20 45 25 25

5 0 40 75 20 10 0 55 0 0

Pileated woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 25 10 0 0 0 50 0 50 47

3 43 40 3 47 47 50 80 50 53

4 32 50 97 53 53 0 13 0 0

5 00000070 0

EElSCumEf4 1 00000000 0

2 25 10 0 0 0 50 0 50 47

3 43 40 3 47 47 50 80 50 53

4 32 50 97 53 53 0 13 0 0

5 00000070 0

UCRBBLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 25 15 0 0 0 50 0 50 45

3 50 35 3 45 45 50 85 50 55

4 25 50 97 55 55 0 10 0 0

5 00000050 0

©28 Terrestrial
Table 4.13 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area' Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

UCRBCumEfP 1 00000000 0

2 25 15 0 0 0 50 0 50 45

3 50 35 3 45 45 50 85 50 55

4 25 50 97 55 55 0 10 0 0

5 00000050 0

Pygmy nuthatch EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000303 0

2 88 13 0 18 15 40 15 40 20

3 13 88 43 60 58 58 43 58 78

4 0 0 55 23 25 0 40 0 3

5 00303030 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000303 0

2 88 13 0 18 15 40 15 40 20

3 13 88 43 60 58 58 43 58 78

4 0 0 55 23 25 0 40 0 3

5 00303030 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 3 0 18 15 40 15 40 20

3 13 98 43 60 55 60 43 60 78

4 0 0 55 23 30 0 43 0 3

5 00300000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 3 0 18 15 40 15 40 20

3 13 98 43 60 55 60 43 60 78

4 0 0 55 23 30 0 43 0 3

5 00300000 0

Red-naped sapsucker EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 100 0 0 15 23 30 5 31 19

3 0 75 45 73 65 70 58 69 56

4 0 25 30 13 13 0 25 0 25

5 0 0 2 5 00 0 1 3 0 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 100 0 0 10 18 25 3 26 14

3 0 75 43 78 70 75 58 74 61

4 0 25 33 13 13 0 28 0 25

5 0 0 2 5 00 0 1 3 0 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 100 0 0 15 23 30 5 31 19

3 0 75 45 73 65 70 58 69 56

4 0 25 30 13 13 0 25 0 25

5 0 0 2 5 00 0 1 3 0 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 100 0 0 10 18 25 3 26 14

3 0 75 43 78 70 75 58 74 61

4 0 25 33 13 13 0 28 0 25

5 0 0 2 5 00 0 1 3 0 0

Three-toed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 45 10 0 8 10 5 0 13 15

3 55 89 20 70 58 88 63 80 79

4 0 1 60 23 33 8 38 8 6

5 0 0 2 0 00000 0

Terrestrial 63?
Table 4.13 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 45 10 0 8 10 5 0 13 15

3 55 88 20 70 58 88 63 80 79

4 0 3 60 23 33 8 38 8 6

5 0 0 2 0 00000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 45 10 0 8 10 5 0 13 15

3 55 89 20 75 63 88 63 80 81

4 0 1 59 18 28 8 38 8 4

5 0 0 2 1 00000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 45 10 0 8 10 5 0 13 15

3 55 88 20 75 63 88 63 80 81

4 0 3 59 18 28 8 38 8 4

5 0 0 2 1 00000 0

Vaux's swift EEISBLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 3000030 0 1 0

3 23 27 0 50 20 27 0 7 87

4 40 73 50 47 43 67 75 87 3

5 33 0 50 3 37 3 25 7 0

EElSCumEff4 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 3 0 0 20 0 10 0 3 63

4 57 93 25 65 47 70 50 90 33

5 40 7 75 15 53 20 50 7 3

UCRBBLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 000030 0 1 0

3 23 20 0 50 20 27 0 7 87

4 33 80 50 47 47 70 75 87 3

5 33 0 50 3 33 0 25 7 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 10 0 0 20 0 10 0 3 63

4 57 87 25 65 47 70 50 90 33

5 33 13 75 15 53 20 50 7 3

White-breasted nuthatch EEISBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 8 0 8 8 20 3 30 18

3 13 88 43 80 63 80 53 70 75

4 0 5 55 13 28 0 43 0 8

5 00303030 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 8 0 8 8 23 3 33 18

3 13 93 43 80 63 78 53 68 75

4 0 0 55 13 28 0 43 0 8

5 00303030 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 83 10 0 7 10 27 0 40 23

3 17 90 37 90 73 73 62 60 60

4 0 0 63 3 17 0 38 0 17

5 00000000 0

828 Terrestrial
Table 4.13 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Species Name Area1 Outcome2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 83 10 0 7 10 27 0 40 23

3 17 90 37 90 73 73 62 60 60

4 0 0 63 3 17 0 38 0 17

5 00000000 0

White-headed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 63 0 0 0 0 33 18 35 23

3 38 35 2 28 30 68 30 65 48

4 0 53 78 58 45 0 52 0 30

5 0 13 20 15 25 0 0 0 0

EElSCumEff4 1 00000000 0

2 63 0 0 0 0 25 15 30 20

3 38 35 2 15 18 75 33 70 50

4 0 53 65 70 58 0 52 0 30

5 0 13 33 15 25 0 0 0 0

UCRB BLM/FS4 1 00000000 0

2 63 0 0 0 0 30 20 38 28

3 38 33 2 30 33 70 30 63 43

4 0 55 78 58 45 0 50 0 30

5 0 13 20 13 23 0 0 0 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 63 0 0 0 0 25 18 15 25

3 38 33 2 18 20 75 32 80 45

4 0 55 70 70 58 0 50 5 30

5 0 13 28 13 23 0 0 0 0

Williamson's sapsucker EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000003 0

2 88 10 0 8 10 28 5 28 25

3 13 70 25 53 46 63 35 61 65

4 0 20 55 40 41 10 53 9 10

5 0 0 2 0 03080 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000003 0

2 88 10 0 8 10 25 5 25 25

3 13 70 25 55 46 65 35 64 63

4 0 20 53 38 39 10 50 9 13

5 0 0 2 3 05 0 1 0 0 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 5 0 8 10 23 5 20 25

3 13 75 28 73 53 55 38 59 65

4 0 20 58 20 36 23 54 21 10

5 0 0 1 5 01040 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 5 0 8 10 23 5 20 25

3 13 75 28 70 53 53 38 56 63

4 0 20 55 23 34 25 54 24 13

5 0 0 1 8 04040 0

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Terrestrial ©29
Table 4.14. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cavity nesting woodpeckers, nuthcatches and swifts for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as

the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative2

Species Name Area1 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Black-backed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.2 4.13 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.2 4.13 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 3.1 4.03 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.5 2.9 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.2 4.13 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.0

Downy woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS4 1.8 2.7 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9

EElSCumEff4 1.8 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8

UCRB BLM/FS4 1.8 2.7 3.23 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.0

UCRBCumEff4 1.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.0

Hairy woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.2

EElSCumEff 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.3

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2

UCRBCumEff 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.3

Lewis'woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 2.3 3.5 4.53 3.5 3.5 2.53 3.9 2.63 2.63

EElSCumEff 2.7 3.9 4.83 4.0 3.7 3.03 4.63 3.03 3.03

UCRB BLM/FS 2.3 3.4 4.53 3.4 3.2 2.73 4.03 2.73 2.73

UCRBCumEff 2.8 4.0 4.83 4.0 3.8 3.23 4.63 3.33 3.33

Pileated woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS4 3.1 3.4 4.03 3.5 3.5 2.53 3.3 2.53 2.53

EElSCumEff4 3.1 3.4 4.03 3.5 3.5 2.53 3.3 2.53 2.53

UCRB BLM/FS4 3.0 3.4 4.03 3.6 3.6 2.53 3.2 2.53 2.63

UCRBCumEff4 3.0 3.4 4.03 3.6 3.6 2.53 3.2 2.53 2.63

Pygmy nuthatch EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 2.9 3.63 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.6 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.2 2.9 3.63 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.6 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 3.0 3.63 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.6 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.0 3.63 3.1 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.6 2.9

Red-naped sapsucker EEIS BLM/FS 2.0 3.3 3.83 3.0 2.9 2.73 3.5 2.73 3.1

EElSCumEff 2.0 3.3 3.93 3.1 3.0 2.83 3.6 2.73 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 2.0 3.3 3.83 3.0 2.9 2.73 3.5 2.73 3.1

UCRBCumEff 2.0 3.3 3.93 3.1 3.0 2.83 3.6 2.73 3.1

Three-toed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS 2.6 2.9 4.03 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.43 3.0 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.6 3.0 4.03 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.43 3.0 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.6 2.9 4.03 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.43 3.0 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.6 3.0 4.03 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.43 3.0 2.9

Vaux's swift EEIS BLM/FS4 4.0 3.7 4.53 3.5 4.2 3.7 4.33 4.0 2.93

EElSCumEff4 4.4 4.1 4.8 4.0 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.0 3.4

UCRB BLM/FS4 3.9 3.8 4.5 3.5 4.1 3.7 4.3 4.0 2.9

UCRBCumEff4 4.2 4.1 4.8 4.0 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.0 3.4

White-breasted nuthatch EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.0 3.63 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.53 2.7 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.0 3.63 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.53 2.7 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 2.9 3.63 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.6 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.2 2.9 3.63 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.6 2.9

White-headed woodpecker EEIS BLM/FS4 2.4 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.0 2.73 3.3 2.73 3.13

EElSCumEff4 2.4 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.1 2.83 3.4 2.73 3.13

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.4 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9 2.73 3.33 2.73 3.13

UCRBCumEff4 2.4 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.1 2.83 3.33 2.9s 3.13

630 Terrestrial
Table 4.14 (continued)

Period / Alternative2

Species Name Area1 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Williamson's sapsucker EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.1 4.03 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.7s 2.8 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.1 4.03 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.73 2.8 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 3.2 3.93 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.2 3.93 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.0 2.9

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

2

Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of die management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Vaux's swifts nest in large-diameter snags and hoi- Cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines

low trees, especially grand fir (Bull and Collins ,

1993, Bull and Hohmann 1993). Suitable nesting Introduction—The ICBEMP assessment datahabitat is distributed in disjunct patches and is

 basf llsts 174 sPecles of

 cuckoos, hummingbirds,

projected to remain so under nearly all alternatives ^ Passerines that occur within the Basin. Using

(table 4.14). Alternative 7, with its system of

 the

 methods outlined above (Methods for

reserves and retention of late-serai patches of for- Assessing Effects on Terrestrial Species), we selectest, is expected to result in improved distribution

 ed

 ^ sf

ecies for

 viability assessments We recomof nesting habitat with larger patches containing

 mend that

 assessment of five species (blacklarge-diameter trees for nesting. The Vaux's swift dunned fParr°

w

' day-colored sparrow, hermit

had lower outcomes under the cumulative effects TM&kr least flycatcher, and tricolored blackbird

analysis (table 4.14). Unlike most other cavity-

 be

 conducted at a fine scale because of their local

nesting species that are permanent residents, distributions within the Basin. Species were selectVaux's swift is a migrant and is influenced by loss

 e

,

d for

 assessment because of known population

of habitat on the wintering grounds.

 dec mes or be':ause

 <heir habltats,

 we\e

 projected

to decline under at least one of the alternatives.

Lewis' woodpeckers nest in large-diameter cotton- We included two species (western bluebird and

woods along permanently-flowing streams and in chestnut-backed chickadee) in this group that

mature, decayed trees in upland sites (Bock 1970, were actually assessed by the woodpeckers,

Galen 1989, Marshall 1992, Raphael and White nuthatches, and swifts panel.

1984). Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 5, which

have limited riparian buffers, were projected to Methods—We used standard methods, as outprovide more isolated and smaller patches of nest-

 h

,

ned m the

 methods section of this chapter, for

ing habitat than current. Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 the ^sessment of cuckoos hummingbirds and

were projected to improve distribution of habitat passerines. Because of the large number of species

to near historic levels. The cumulative effects involved, we grouped species into their general

analysis showed greater risk due to the likely

 habltat

 associations. We grouped 13 species assoincreased loss of suitable nesting habitat along

 ciated

 with coniferous forest habitat, 4 species as

streams on non-Federal lands. woodland habitat associates, 7 species as riparian

Terrestrial 631
habitat associates, and 12 species as grass/shrub had lower mean outcomes than any of the other

habitat associates (table 4.15). One of the forest alternatives, but mean differences were small

species, broad-tailed hummingbird, occurs only in (fig. 4.25).

the UCRB area and was not analyzed for the L-J A r.u- j

„„.„ w, ... ,. • • i Forest birds. Among forest birds, one species

EEIS area. We did not adjust original outcome . • j j ,. u i> A] Ai*

r r . .' ° (western tanager) was judged to have broadly disscores for any or the species. ., , , , . ff^ ,\ j n r..

'

 r tributed habitat (Outcome 1) under all ot the

Results—Results of the viability assessment for alternatives. Another (rufous-sided towhee) was

the 36 species are listed in tables 4.15 and 4.16. judged to have habitat conditions typical of

For the combined set of birds in this group, mean Outcome 2 under historic conditions and under

outcomes were generally similar between the EEIS all alternatives except Alternatives 4, 6, and 7

and UCRB EIS planning areas (fig. 4.25). In (table 4.16). We judged that no species had outaddition, the difference in mean outcome between comes lower than Outcome 3 historically, and

assessments on Federal lands and the cumulative that Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 would not result in

effects assessment averaged about 0.25 outcome species with outcomes lower than 3. Alternatives 1

units for each alternative (fig. 4.25). Mean out- and 5 would have 5 species at Outcome 4 in the

comes under all of the alternatives were judged to EEIS planning (fig. 4.26). The UCRB planning

be lower than under historic conditions and were area had similar patterns,

similar to current conditions. Alternatives 1 and 5

Figure 4.25 Cuckoos, Hummingbirds, Passerines

EEIS UCRB

1 I . =| I 1 I . =.

Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

| * & | » a

2 - 2 -

J3-\£*5v£s 3-\g£££*£Z

COo

2

4 - 4 -

C I i i i i i i i i i I K |_J | | | | | | i i

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.25. Mean outcome scores averaged over 36 species of cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines in the EEIS and UCRB

planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate

scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis.

These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

632 Terrestrial
Mean outcomes were judged to be about 2.5 Grassland/shrubland birds. Of the 12 species of

(between Outcomes 2 and 3) historically and were grassland/shrubland birds, nine were judged to

lowest under Alternatives 1 and 5 in both plan- have habitat conditions of Outcome 3 or better

ning areas (fig. 4.27). Compared with current under each of the alternatives. We estimated that

habitat conditions, habitat decreased in the EEIS seven species had historic habitat conditions in

area by at least 0.5 outcome units for three species Outcome 1 in both planning areas (fig. 4.33). We

under Alternative 1 and for two species under estimated that eight species had current habitat

Alternative 5. In the UCRB EIS area, habitat con- conditions in Outcome 1 in the EEIS area and

ditions decreased for two species under Alternative that five species had Outcome 1 in the UCRB

1, and for one species under Alternative 5 (fig. EIS area. In the EEIS area, three species had habi4.28). In both planning areas, habitat conditions tat conditions in Outcomes 4 or 5 under all of the

were judged to have increased for one or more alternatives. In the UCRB EIS area, all three

species under Alternatives 4, 6, and 7. species were projected to have habitat conditions

\vr ji j t_- j \vr Ji j L- j n in Outcome 4 under all alternatives (fig. 4.33). Woodland birds. Woodland birds were generally Mean ^^ outcomes am ^ the ies

judged to have future habitat conditions under wefe jected ^ Outcome 2 historicali were

each of the alternatives simiar to those of historic estimated as sli htl lower currendv, and were

and current periods (tables 4.15 and 4.16). Except jected m be f than Q 5 ^ Jower under

for Alternatives 4 and 6, all alternatives would each of the altemadves (fi 4 34) Compared

provide habitat conditions of Outcome 3 or better ^ currem ^^ ^^ wa$ jected to

(fig. 4.29). In Alternatives 4 and 6, habitat of one decrease b mor£ than Q 5 unks fof four m $[x

species (bushtit) that is associated with jumper ies under ^ ^^^ in each lanni

woodlands declined to Outcome 4 m both plan- afea ^^ was not ted £o mcrease for

&

ning areas (table 4 16) Habitat of the chipping ies from currem condidons (fi 4 35)

sparrow was distributed in Outcome 1 historically,

currently, and under all alternatives. Outcomes Discussion—

under the cumulative effects analysis were slightly . ... . .

lower than those of the Federal habitat analysis Comparisons among habitats Several general

(f 4 30") patterns are apparent within the group or cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines. First, species

Riparian birds. Current and future habitat condi- associated with riparian habitats had lower mean

tion for riparian birds was judged to have declined outcome scores than were typical of other species

from historic conditions. Historically, habitat was groups, reflecting the more patchy and disjunct

distributed in Outcomes 2 and 3 for all seven distribution of riparian habitat compared with

species. Current and future habitat condition other upland habitats. Alternatives that would

under the alternatives is mostly in Outcomes 3, 4, provide wider riparian buffers (Alternatives 2, 3,

and 5 (fig. 4.31). Compared to current habitat, 4, 6, and 7) had higher average scores than alterdistribution of habitat under the alternatives was natives that would provide smaller buffers (Alternot projected to increase or decline by more than natives 1 and 5). In addition, provisions for modi0.5 outcome units. Overall, mean outcomes were fym

g grazmg practices that might interfere with

between Outcomes 3 and 4 for this group of birds. aquatic conservation objectives led to increased

Projected mean outcomes were lowest under outcome scores for species associated with shrub

Alternatives 1 and 5 and highest under Alterna- habitats within the riparian zones. One species in

lives 4 and 6 (fig. 4.32). Outcomes for the cumu- this group, the yellow-billed cuckoo, occurs as

lative effects analysis were lower than outcomes for extremely disjunct and small populations and its

die Federal habitat assessment under current con- habitat (both current and projected under the

ditions and under each of the alternatives. alternatives) is distributed in Outcome 5. This

Terrestrial ©33
species occurs in scattered locations within the ated with Palouse and other native bunchgrasses

planning areas, and is associated with large cot- (Cannings 1991, Janes 1983, Marshall 1992).

tonwood trees with dense shrubby understories The distribution of this habitat is much reduced

(Laymon 1987; Marshall 1992; Saab and Rich, in from historic levels and was judged to remain

press). The species is at risk due to pesticide spray- disjunct and patchy in the future under all altering (Laymon 1987) and has undergone a long- natives. Restoration, if successful and if preterm population decline (Marshall 1992; Saab and scribed fire can be effectively used, may result in

Rich, in press). increased representation of native bunchgrasses

... . . ... 11 i i i • under Alternatives 4 and 6. The black rosy finch

Second, birds associated with woodland habitat Is associated with ^ ine and barren> hi h eleva_

had generally higher scores than those of birds don ^^ (R m^ Twim m^ Zemer

associated with other habitats in this group. Birds and others j 99Q) These ^y^ haye a naturall

associated with woodland habitat tend to have h ^ ^ distribution and as a result>

generalized habitat associations. The amount of ^ iej was .4. tQ Qccur in Outcome 4

upland woodland habitat is not projected to vary under ^ dme iods and dtematives The

significantly among alternatives For both reasons, maJQr fisk £Q ^ • ^j^ ^ tendal oyer.

historic, current, and projected future outcomes grazing by sheep,

under alternatives for this group of species were

consistently projected into Outcomes 1, 2, or 3. Although coniferous forest habitats were generally

We did note, however, that retention of juniper projected to remain relatively well distributed, sevwoodland is a key requirement of ash-throated eral species associated with coniferous forest

flycatcher (Ehrlich and others 1988, Zeiner and (Hammond's flycatcher, winter wren, olive-sided

others 1990), sage thrasher (Saab and Rich, in flycatcher, and Wilson's warbler) had lower than

press), and bushtit (Butler 1981, Ehrlich and oth- average habitat outcomes. Hammond's flycatcher

ers 1988, Zeiner and others 1990). We assumed (Sakai 1988, Sedgwick 1994) and winter wren

that restoration activity in Alternatives 4 and 6 (Zeiner and others 1990) are associated with latewould include juniper woodland in the desired serai forest, especially that dominated by ponmix of future vegetation types. derosa pine. Alternatives 4 and 6 were projected

_. . . . • i • i to leadto increased amounts of late-serai montane

Third, we noted that three species associated with forest) and ^ outcomes under these ^KrnM[ves

grassland/shrubland habitat (bobolink, grasshop- wefe hi hef than under Qther alternadves. olive.

per sparrow and black rosy finch) had current sided fl hers are associated with mature forest

and projected future weighted mean habitat out- ^ juxt ition with openings, such as those crecomes lower than 4 0 The bobolink is associated ated b fir£ Qr

 JQ m (Dobkin ^. Saab and

with moist grassland habitats (Bollinger and Rich> in ess) Restoration of kte.seral forest

Gavm 992 Martin and Gavm 1995, Witten- condidons under Alternatives 4 and 6, and retenberger 1978). Populations have undergone don of late.seral forest under

 Alternative 7, were

marked declines, possibly resulting from loss of ojected M cfeate f ^^ ^d a more

habitat on their wintering grounds (Saab and contiguous distribution of habitat than under

Rich, in press). Habitat was judged to be disjunct Qther alternadves However, differences were not

and^ patchy both currently and m the future considering the uncertainty associated with

under the alternatives. Restoration of native mean outcome scores (taWe ^ ^ 4_D)

grasslands and herbs under Alternatives 4 and 6 Wilson>s warb,ers occuf Jn mid_sera, montane for.

would likely result in a broader and more con- ^ ^ ^ ^ f. dan shmb habitats (Dob]dn

tiguous distribution of favorable habitat for this m^ Joh d 1986> Stewan 1973) Their habi.

species, depending on the levels of grazing that ^ wefe jud d ^ haye be£n h and disjuna

are prescribed. The grasshopper sparrow is associ- historically, currently, and under each of the alter634 Terrestrial